chapter 2 purpose and need for project - … 2 purpose and need for project willits bypass eir/eis...

Willits Bypass EIR/EIS Page 2-1

CHAPTER 2 Purpose and Need for ProjectCaltrans and FHWA propose to build a new segment of U.S. 101 around Willits toimprove safety and the efficiency of U.S. 101. The information presented belowdescribes the reasons the project is being proposed and provides a history of theproject. A copy of the 1995 Purpose and Need (P&N) statement is provided inAppendix G. Caltrans has updated the 1995 P&N statement with current data ontraffic and safety conditions. The 1995 P&N statement has also been revised to aformat that is more consistent with the Draft EIR/EIS.

The following P&N statement is critical for three primary reasons: because it justifiesthe proposed project even though it will result in environmental impacts; because itdetermines the range of alternatives that are being considered; and because itdetermines the selection of the preferred alternative. Interagency coordination for theproposed project strives to meet the purpose and need for the project while alsoconsidering the environmental constraints of meeting the need, such as Waters of theU.S., floodplains, endangered species, and historical properties. As part of theNEPA/404 Integration Process, a high priority is placed on avoidance of adverseimpacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). However, in meeting the agreed-upon purpose and need for this project, complete avoidance is not practicable, andminimization and mitigation will be achieved to the extent reasonable and practicable.

The following discussion of purpose and need is consistent with the 1995 NEPA/404P&N statement agreed upon by participating members of the NEPA/404 IntegrationProcess for this project (see Appendix G for explanation of NEPA/404 IntegrationProcess). This interagency agreement on purpose and need is instrumental forfacilitating interagency input and concurrence on the range of alternatives, selectionof the preferred alternative, and issuance of mandatory permits/approvals, withoutwhich the project could not be constructed.

For a description of alternatives being considered, see Chapter 3.

2.1 Purpose of Proposed Bypass Project

Recognizing the importance of U.S. 101 for the interregional movement of peopleand goods, Caltrans and FHWA propose to construct a new segment of U.S. 101 that

Chapter 2 Purpose and Need for Project

-2 Willits Bypass EIR/EIS

would bypass Willits in Mendocino County. Caltrans and FHWA propose thisbypass project to reduce delays, improve safety and achieve a level of service (LOS)of at least “C” for interregional traffic on U.S. 101 within the vicinity of Willits,through the 20-year design period (i.e., 2028). Table 2-1 defines LOS as it applies tofreeways.

Table 2-1. Freeway Level of Service (LOS) Criteria

A Highest quality of service. Free traffic flow, low volume and densities. Little or norestriction on maneuverability or speed. 105+ kph (65+ mph). No delay.

B Stable traffic flow, speed becoming slightly restricted. Low restriction onmaneuverability. 105 kph (65 mph). No delay.

C Stable traffic flow, but less freedom to select speed, change lanes or pass. Densityincreasing. 104 kph (64.5 mph). Minimal delay.

D Speeds tolerable but subject to sudden and considerable variation. 100 kph (62 mph).Minimal delay.

EUnstable traffic flow with rapidly fluctuating speeds and flow rates. Shortheadway’s, low maneuverability and low driver comfort 84 kph (52 mph).Considerable delay.

F Stop and go traffic. Speed and flow vary. Considerable delay.

2.2 Need for Proposed Bypass Project

U.S. 101 is an important route for interstate and interregional travel and is consideredthe economic lifeline of California's North Coast. It is the principal arterial route forpeople and goods between the San Francisco Bay Area and the greater Eureka-Arcataarea. Travel times and the costs of transporting goods to and from the communitiesalong U.S. 101 are high. Travel times and transportation costs are exacerbated bycongestion-related delays and delays caused by facility type at Willits where U.S. 101passes through developed areas on surface streets.



Because U.S. 101 also serves as Main Street in Willits and is the only continuousnorth/south street traversing the city, U.S. 101 must accommodate nearly all localtraffic traversing Willits as well as all interregional traffic intending to pass through.Traffic congestion has been a concern in Willits for a number of years, and it isbecoming more prevalent as traffic volume increases. The proposed project is neededto respond to a number of deficiencies that exist on the current facility. Theseproblems are discussed below in Sections 2.2.1, Existing Facility, through 2.2.6,Conditions for Bicyclists and Pedestrians.

2.2.1 Existing Facility U.S. 101 traverses the states of Washington, Oregon, and California; it is the majornorth/south route connecting southern and central California with the communitiesalong California’s north coast and Oregon’s southern and central coasts. U.S. 101 ison the California Freeway and Expressway System and in the National HighwaySystem. This section of U.S. 101 is important for commerce and goods movement.U.S. 101 is designated for large interstate trucks and oversized permit loads, both ofwhich are accommodated on this section of the route. U.S. 101 is part of the StrategicHighway Network.

The project study area extends from about 3.2 km (2.0 miles) south of Willits, wherethe existing four-lane freeway becomes a two-lane highway, to about 7.7 km (4.8miles) north of the Willits city limits at Oil Well Hill, where it is a two-lane facility(Figure S-1).

South of the project study area, U.S. 101 is a four-lane freeway/expressway toapproximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) south of Willits where it becomes a two-lane highway.The two-lane highway serves a sparsely developed area before it increases to fourlanes with a two-way left turn lane just north of the intersection with Baechtel Road,where commercial development intensifies. The four-lanes with a two-way left turnlane segment extends about one mile (called “the miracle mile”) to about Hazel Streetwhere one of the northbound lanes ends. North of S.R. 20, through the olderdowntown portion of Willits, U.S. 101 reduces further to two lanes with a two-wayleft turn lane until just beyond Willits High School. From Willits High School northto Reynolds Highway, U.S. 101 traverses rural lands as a two-lane highway. FromReynolds Highway north over Oil Well Hill, the two lane-lane highway is augmentedwith truck climbing lanes. The truck climbing lane northbound is about 1.5 km (0.9


Page

mi) long and extends from about Reynolds Highway to the summit, while thesouthbound truck climbing lane runs from the summit to about 0.7 km (0.4 mi) north.

U.S. 101 is the only continuous north-south roadway through Willits; therefore, bothinterregional and local traffic must share the facility. The reduction of onenorthbound lane south of the S.R. 20/U.S. 101 intersection creates a bottleneck fornorthbound travelers approaching the intersection and is a significant source ofcongestion. Northbound traffic often queues-up south to Holly Street or beyondduring peak-hour periods. Side street access at Holly Street is expected to improvewith construction of a Holly Street signal in the near future, but it will not reduceoverall delay. Traffic congestion in Willits will worsen as traffic volumes increase.Side street traffic, commercial driveways, street parking and pedestrian traffic conflictwith interregional through traffic and will contribute to congestion in Willits.

The U.S. 101 right of way through Willits is relatively narrow. Widening the existingfacility is not practicable, as much of the commercial development would need to beremoved to make room for the widened highway.

Figure 2-1. Existing U.S. 101 in Willits

2-4 Willits Bypass EIR/EIS

A long queue of commercial trucks and automobiles crawls through Willits, whilebicyclists and pedestrians wait for an opportunity to safely cross congested U.S. 101,which also serves as Willits’ Main Street.



Long queues of cars following concentrations of heavy commercial vehicles createslow, stop-and-go travel through Willits. Congestion is especially bad during thetourist season, with heavy southbound recreational traffic often backing up to OilWell Hill, north of the S.R.20/U.S.101 intersection. The congestion results inincreased travel time for motorists and delayed response time for emergency vehicles.While interregional traffic is delayed substantially, local residents have becomeincreasingly frustrated with the time required to make local trips. These conditionsare discussed in detail below.

2.2.2 Level of Service for Interregional TrafficRecognizing the importance of U.S. 101 for the interregional movement of peopleand goods, Caltrans has established a concept LOS “C” for the route in the RouteConcept Report. The Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the MendocinoCouncil of Governments (MCOG) recommends that new facilities provide a LOS ofat least “C” through the year 2010. The Caltrans Route Concept Report (RCR) forU.S. 101, north from San Francisco to the Oregon border, calls for the ultimateconstruction of a four-lane freeway or expressway3 to minimize congestion anddelays, and to improve traffic safety. Achieving this concept would require additionalbypasses of several communities such as Hopland, Laytonville, Eureka and CrescentCity. A project to bypass Hopland is in the early environmental study process.

Travel times and the costs of transporting goods to and from the communities alongU.S. 101 are high. Travel times and transportation costs are exacerbated bycongestion-related delays in Willits and other locations where U.S. 101 passesthrough developed areas on surface streets. When traffic volumes were lower, manymore communities north of San Francisco had U.S. 101 passing through the middle oftown on surface streets. Over time, most of those communities, including the cities ofNovato, San Rafael, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cloverdale, Ukiah, Rio Dell, Fortuna,Arcata, and the communities of McKinleyville and Garberville have been bypassed or

3 In November 1994, the RCR was revised to a lower concept for two segmentsbetween Eureka and Crescent City reflecting constraints imposed by the proximity ofstate and national park lands and the presence of protected species. The concept LOSfor U.S. 101 at Willits was changed during that revision from “B” to “C.”


Page 2-6 Willits Bypass EIR/EIS

had access-controlled freeways built through them. Willits is the only incorporatedcity between San Francisco and Eureka, a distance of 435 km (270 mi) that continuesto have U.S. 101 traversing the city on surface streets.

One of the factors contributing to the high travel times through the Willits area is thefacility type. Because the roadway is a conventional highway through town, speedson the facility are relatively low. The posted speed limits range from 55 mph at theends of the study area to 25 mph within portions of the city. Free flow travel time atthe posted speed limits, assuming no delays for traffic signals, is just over 12 minutes.

Considerable friction associated with commercial driveways, side streets, parking andpedestrian traffic contributes further to decreased average speeds through Willits.Average speeds within the city are 16 mph (Baechtel Road to Sherwood Road) withaverage speeds of 30 mph for the full length of the study area. Slow average speedsdelay interregional traffic travel substantially.

Table 2-2 shows travel times on U. S. 101 through the project limits from 0.9 km (0.6mi.) south of the Haehl Overhead to 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) north of Reynolds Highway forthe 1998, 2008, and 2028 No-Build as well as build alternatives.

Table 2-2. Travel Time on U.S. 101 (KP 69.4/84.2) for Interregional Traffic

Alternative 1998 Peak Hour(Minutes)

2008 Const. YearPeak Hour(Minutes)

2028 20 years AfterConstruction Peak

Hour (Minutes)

No-Build 18.3 23.9 32.3

Freeway AlternativesC1T, E3, J1T, LT N/A 9.1-9.4 9.2-9.6

Source: Traffic Study for the Willits Bypass, Caltrans, 1999

N/A – not applicable

The travel times listed in Table 2-2 are for peak hour traffic, and comparing the freeflow travel time of 12.1 minutes to the peak hour time of 18.3 minutes, one can seethat congestion at peak hour currently increases travel time about 50 percent. Inaddition, travel times are expected to increase dramatically under the No BuildAlternative. By 2008, travel times would almost double in comparison with freeflow. And by 2028, would be more than 2.5 times as high as free flow times.



For motorists in the stream of traffic, this means considerable delay and frustration.Simple trips for shopping, transporting children to and from school functions,commercial deliveries, and interregional pleasure and business travel all are delayedby the times indicated. Traffic collisions increase these delays, and at these times,emergency vehicles are delayed even further in getting assistance to victims.

These slower average speeds reflected in the no-build scenarios above impactinterregional and interstate traffic as well as regional traffic. The considerable delaysimposed on interregional and interstate traffic passing through Willits, and othercommunities not yet bypassed, cumulatively impede the ability to effectively movepeople and goods on U.S. 101.

2.2.3 Safety ConcernsWithin the project limits, U.S. 101 has several different facility types with a variety ofroadbed widths, lane configurations and numerous at-grade intersections. Non-standard widths, lack of traffic separation, congestion and numerous conflictingtraffic movements due to turns and cross-traffic, contribute to a collision rate of 1.40collisions per million vehicle kilometers that exceeds the statewide average of 1.10collision per million vehicle kilometers travel for similar facilities. The statewideaverage for a rural four-lane freeway with the same Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is0.31 collisions per million vehicle kilometers traveled.

There were a total of 469 collisions on U.S. 101 between June 1995 and May 2000 inthe project area. Of the 469 collisions reported, 3 resulted in fatalities, 141 resulted ininjuries, and the remainder resulted solely in property damage. The existing total,injury, and fatality collision rates are 4.5, 3.0, and 1.5 times higher than the statewideaverage total, injury, and fatality rates, respectively, compared to a rural four-lanefacility with the same ADT.

Interregional commercial vehicles must use U.S. 101 through Willits and pass high-density residential areas, schools and businesses. Interregional trucks carryinghazardous materials must also travel through Willits posing further risk to thecommunity.



2.2.4 Interregional Truck Traffic Interferes with Local TravelTrucks are an important component of U.S. 101 traffic. Truck traffic on U.S. 101 inthe Willits area ranges from approximately 10 percent of the traffic volume south ofS.R. 20 to approximately 5 percent of the traffic volume north of S.R. 20. Averagedaily truck traffic volumes exceed 1,000 south of the U.S. 101 intersection with S.R.20. Trucks have a lower operating capability than passenger cars, particularly withrespect to acceleration and deceleration. Trucks often slow the average speed oftraffic by creating platoons of following vehicles, in effect slowing the average speedof the entire platoon. As stated above, many interregional commercial vehicles carryhazardous materials through Willits, passing businesses, high-density residentialareas, and schools.

2.2.5 Noise and VibrationThe interregional automobile and truck traffic described above generates noise andvibration along existing U.S. 101 in Willits. By removing a large percentage ofinterregional traffic from the more densely developed areas, a bypass would reducethe amount of noise and vibration experienced by nearby homes, businesses, schoolsand other community facilities.

2.2.6 Conditions for Bicyclists and PedestriansVarious roadway conditions throughout the length of the existing highway presentdifficulties for bicyclists and pedestrians. In particular, these issues make accesswithin Willits difficult for less automobile-oriented groups such as children, thedisabled, and the elderly.

In the five-lane section between Baechtel Road and just south of the CaliforniaWestern Railroad crossing, there are wide roadways and few marked crosswalks. Thedifficulties in crossing the four lanes of through traffic are compounded by trafficusing the two-way left-turn lane. Conflicts between bicyclists and automobiles canarise when on-street parking is permitted, especially when coupled with narrowshoulders, which occurs between S.R. 20 and Commercial Street. North ofCommercial Street, restaurants and convenience stores attract students from the highschool across the highway. The pedestrian crossings exacerbate the congestion ofturning movements across the highway. Offset intersections and drivewayscontribute to the general congestion on the route. The multiple driveways separated



by short lengths of curb and sidewalk add to the conflicting movements that makenon-motorized travel more difficult.

Although no improvements to the existing facility are contemplated under any of thebuild alternatives, removing the substantial numbers of automobiles and large truckswith interregional origins and destinations is expected to improve conditions for bothbicyclists and pedestrians along the existing highway.

2.3 Objectives of the Proposed Action

The objectives of the proposed project are to improve level of service, improvesafety, and reduce delays for interregional traffic:

� Improve level of service (to LOS “C” on the newly constructed segments) forinterregional traffic by decreasing congestion and delays on U.S. 101.

� Improve traffic safety on U.S. 101.

� Reduce delays for interregional traffic by separating interregional traffic fromdowntown traffic.

As a by-product of the proposed project, the following benefits would occur:

� Improved traffic safety on Main Street in Willits.

� Reduced noise and vibration experienced by nearby homes, businesses, schoolsand other community facilities in Willits due to interregional commercial truck andother through traffic. Removing the constant stream of U.S. 101 interregional trucktraffic from Main Street will enhance the local community aspects of Willits.

� Improved conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, and for less mobile groupssuch as the young, disabled and elderly. Removing interregional traffic from theCity of Willits will improve the existing conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians,provide new opportunities for non-motorized circulation improvements, andenhance the friendly small town character of Willits.

� Improved conditions for local residents who use Main Street for routine trips towork places, shops, and schools. Removal of interregional traffic from Main Streetwill reduce congestion for local traffic.



2.4 History of Planning and Scoping Process

This section describes the history of the Willits Bypass project and the variousalternatives that have been studied over the years. Several of the alternatives wereeliminated during the scoping process. A description of the discarded alternatives isincluded in Chapter 3.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study.

2.4.1 Pre-1987 HistoryThe proposed Willits Bypass project dates back as far as the early 1960s. In 1962, theDirector of District 1 of the California Division of Highways (later to becomeCaltrans) approved a project report recommending construction of a four-lane bypasswithin the current project limits. In 1963, the California Highway Commission (laterto become the California Transportation Commission or CTC) adopted a routebypassing Willits to the east. The alignment would later be known as Alternative A.

In 1969, the Division of Highways improved U.S. 101 by constructing a segment offreeway south of Willits. That project placed excess excavated material asembankment in the southern end of the Little Lake Valley for a future freeway projectenvisioned to be constructed northward on the adopted route. Funding shortfalls anda lack of local support at that time halted further development of the bypass until1987 when District 1 began the current project development effort.

2.4.2 Post-1987 HistoryIn 1987, the CTC directed Caltrans to re-evaluate the adopted route (Alternative A)along with other alternatives. In 1988, the Chief of the Office of Project Planning andDesign (OPPD) approved a Project Study Report (PSR) investigating the feasibilityof constructing a four-lane freeway bypass. The PSR examined six alternatives(including the No Build). The current project alignments are much different fromthose examined in the PSR. In the letter approving the PSR, OPPD stated, “theDistrict is authorized to complete environmental studies leading to a route adoption.”

Caltrans established a Project Development Team (PDT) to guide the project and twoTechnical Advisory Groups (TAGs) to disseminate information to and collect inputfrom interested parties. (The two TAGs were later merged into the current singlegroup.)



District 1 held a scoping session in 1989 with resource agencies and the public todetermine issues of concern and to solicit ideas on the range of alternatives. As aresult of the meetings, the PDT added Alternatives F through R to the six listed in thePSR. In 1990 several important steps occurred. The PDT narrowed the alternativesstill under consideration to Alternatives A, C, E, J, K, O, and the No BuildAlternative. In addition, the CTC programmed $1.1 million for right of way for theWillits Bypass.

In 1992, CTC staff requested Caltrans to estimate construction costs for a two-laneexpressway in lieu of a four-lane freeway. CTC made this request due to limitedfunding for new projects. In the 1992 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP),the CTC programmed the Willits Bypass project for $60.5 million construction and atotal of $9 million for right of way to construct a two-lane expressway within right ofway for the ultimate four lanes. After further study, Caltrans staff determined that atwo-lane bypass would not achieve a level of service (LOS) C, accommodate futuretraffic growth, and improve safety as well as a four-lane freeway.

Also in 1992, several other alternatives were investigated as a result of communityinput. These alternatives used Transportation System Management (TSM) concepts toseek ways to use the existing facilities in lieu of an entirely new route. Concepts thatwere investigated included improving intersections, introducing a couplet, andwidening existing U.S. 101 to four lanes by restricting on street parking. Theseconcepts evolved into the TSM Alternative.

In early 1993, the PDT dropped five alternatives including Alternative O. Later thatyear, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) suggested studyof Alternative K2 (intended to be a wetland avoidance alternative), while Willitssuggested study of Alternative L.

In 1994, Caltrans initiated the NEPA/404 Integration process for this project with theACOE, NMFS, USEPA, and USFWS, and the California Department of Fish andGame (DFG) (see Appendix G for an explanation of the NEPA/404 Memorandum ofUnderstanding). By early 1995, pursuant to the NEPA/404 Integration Process,Caltrans, FHWA, and the participating agencies agreed to the Purpose and NeedStatement for the project, and concurred with the modal choice statement, the criteriafor comparisons, and the range of alternatives to be studied.



Engineering and environmental studies continued on several alternatives through1994. The need to redirect resources to complete seismic safety projects and stormdamage restoration projects, as a result of the 1995 storms, caused project efforts tobe suspended until 1998. In 1998, with new funding and resources allocated, studiesresumed on the alternatives approved by the NEPA/404 agencies. The 1998 STIPsupplemented earlier funding and programmed the project for approximately $117million. The project is included in the current 2002 STIP for approximately $116million. The Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) programmed its entire$17.3 million share of Regional Improvement Program funds to indicate strong localsupport for the project.

Between 1963 and today, many alternatives were evaluated and eliminated fromfurther analysis. Chapter 3 provides a discussion of the alternatives withdrawn fromfurther consideration and the reasons for their elimination.

This Draft EIR/EIS represents the current status of the project and projectalternatives. This document will lead to the selection of a preferred alternative.Caltrans and FHWA will prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report/FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIR/EIS) for the preferred alternative. Selectionand approval of the preferred alternative would lead to approvals for final design,permits and a construction project unless the No-Build Alternative is selected, inwhich case, Caltrans and FHWA will prepare a report dropping the project, and afreeway bypass will not be built.

2.5 Funding and Schedule

The Willits Bypass project has been programmed for $116 million in the 2002 STIP.Additional state and regional funds will be the source of the balance of funds neededto construct the project.

Estimated capital costs required for each build alternative under consideration are:Alternative C1T - $128 million; Alternative E3 - $301 million; Alternative J1T - $151million; and Alternative LT - $130 million, broken down as follows:



Table 2-3. Estimated Project Cost

Total Capital Cost Rounded(in $1,000,000’s)

Alt. C1T Alt. E3 Alt. J1T Alt. LT

North:South:Borrow:Total:

$65$43$19$128

$208$93-0-

$301

$93$38$20$151

$67$38$25$130

Currently, the project is scheduled to be advertised in fall of 2005 with a contractorselected and a construction contract awarded in winter of 2005. Physical work wouldbegin in early 2006. The valley alternatives would require three full seasons, soconstruction would be completed late in 2008 or 2009. Alternative E3 would requirefive years of construction time, so project completion would not be until 2010 or2011.

2.6 Support For The Project

A four-lane freeway bypass of Willits is formally supported by:

� Willits City Council

� Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

� Mendocino Council of Governments

� North Coastal Counties Supervisors Association, which represents the eightnorthwestern counties in California

� California Transportation Commission

The Willits City Council has formally endorsed a combination of Alternatives LT andC1T (L/C route), with Alternative L1T on the south and Alternative C1T at the north.The city has reserved land to the east of a new industrial park specifically for thebypass. The Brooktrails Township Community Services District Board of Directorshas formally supported a two-lane alternative on the same L/C route.



The following organizations support other alternatives:

� Save All the Valley Eternally (SAVE) the Northwestern Pacific Railroad SupportCoalition (Bayside), and the Mendocino County Railway Society (Fort Bragg)support a two-lane TSM alternative that includes freight and passenger railservice.

� The Willits Environmental Center (WEC) supports a two-lane alternative for oneof the valley alternatives (C1T, J1T, or LT).

� The Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner expressed his opposition toany alternative that would impact prime farmland.

Final selection of an alternative will not be made until after the full evaluation ofenvironmental impacts, full consideration of public hearing comments, and approvalof the Final EIR/EIS.


CHAPTER 3 Description of the ProposedAction and its Alternatives

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the proposed action, alternatives under consideration,alternatives that have been eliminated, and the construction process that would beemployed if any of the build alternatives were selected.

The proposed action is to construct a new segment of U.S. 101 that would bypassWillits in Mendocino County. Four build alternatives are being proposed toimplement the project – C1T4, J1T, E3, and LT (Map 3). These alternatives wouldconstruct a four-lane freeway, with Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT crossing the LittleLake Valley east of Willits, and Alternative E3 traversing the hills west of Willits.

In addition, a No-Build Alternative is being considered. Under the No-Buildscenario, no improvements to the existing roadways would be constructed, thoughtraffic volumes would increase. Traffic would continue to travel on existing U.S. 101,the same facilities motorists now use. The No-Build Alternative allows reviewers ofthe Draft EIR/EIS to compare the effects of the build alternatives with a futurescenario in which a bypass would not be constructed.

The selection of alternatives for evaluation was based on several factors, includingbenefits, capital cost, technical feasibility, geographic location, and public response.The four build alternatives presented here, along with the No-Build Alternative, areanalyzed at an equal level of detail in this Draft EIR/EIS as required by NEPA.

3.2 Evaluating Alternatives by Segment

As described in Section 1.5, Nodal Analysis, Caltrans evaluated each alternative, asappropriate, by segments. The build alternatives have each been divided into twoparts (Map 3).

4 Alternatives C1 Truncated (C1T), J1T, and LT were shortened to conform to the existinghighway at the north end of the project area to reduce the costs of former Alternatives C1, J1,and L.

Chapter 3 Description of the Proposed Action and its Alternatives


As explained in Section 1.5, the text and tables in this document, for the most part,display data in a manner that allows environmental impacts of each segment to beevaluated separately. For some environmental issues, however, analysis by segmentwas not possible or prudent; for example, certain biological resources or communityissues do not lend themselves to an effective segmental analysis.

Readers are encouraged to indicate alternative preference in their comments on theDraft EIR/EIS (Section 1.7) and identify their reasons for recommending a particularalternative or hybrid alternative.

3.3 Common Features of Alternatives C1T, E3, J1T, and LT

This section discusses the common features of Alternatives C1T, E3, J1T and LT .The dimensions listed in the following discussions are typical; during final designthere may be some variance from them.

Alternatives C1T, E3, J1T and LT would be constructed with four lanes; two in eachdirection, with full access control bypassing Willits. Each lane would be 3.6 m (12 ft)wide. A 13.8 m (45.3 ft) median would separate the northbound and southboundlanes. Inside shoulder width would be 1.5 m (5 ft) (nearest the median) and 3.0 m (10ft) on the outside shoulder. Cut slopes generally would vary between a 1:1(vertical:horizontal) and a 1:2 ratio. Fill slopes generally would vary between a 1:2and 1:4 ratio. The plans would call for slope rounding at appropriate locations.Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show Typical Cross Sections for the build alternatives.

Interchange ramps would have a single lane. Where local roads are improved orconstructed, they would be two lanes or two lanes with a left-turn pocket, and wouldhave generally 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders. Private access roads would generally have two3.6 m (12 ft) lanes and may be either paved or unpaved (Maps 25-28).

The freeway sections of the alternatives would maintain a minimum design speed of110 kilometers per hour (kph) (68 mph), except at the end of Alternative E3 wherethe design speed would be 100 kph (62 mph). Each of the build alternatives wouldmeet the purpose of providing at least LOS C. Each build alternative would carry thepredicted average annual daily traffic (AADT) in 2028 at LOS C or better.


Willits Bypass EIS/EIR Page 3-3

Figure 3-1. Typical Cross-Sections: Freeway Mainline



Figure 3-2. Typical Cross-Sections: Side Slopes



Figure 3-3. Typical Cross-section: Ramps, Local Roads, and PrivateAccess Roads



3.3.1 Design Exceptions

3.3.1.1 Revised Truck Scales Interchange (Alternative C1T)

In April of 2002, the Willits project design team developed revisions to the originallyproposed Truck Scales Interchange for Alternative C1T. The original Truck ScalesInterchange is shown on Map 25b in Volume 2. These revisions were made inresponse to critiques of the original proposal, as a result of Caltrans design exceptionapproval process. The following interchange design changes are proposed: shift themainline alignment easterly at the farthest point approximately 85 m (280 ft), changethe interchange type to a diamond, and lengthen the connection to existing U.S. 101at the north end by approximately 430 m (1400 ft) to complete the lane reduction.The revised interchange is shown on Map 25b(2) in Volume 2. CaltransHeadquarters and FHWA have approved the modified interchange concept proposedby the Caltrans Design team. The revised interchange improves operation andmotorist safety. See Appendix Q for more information regarding the revisedinterchange.

3.3.1.2 MedianThe median separates opposing lanes of traffic and provides a clear recovery zone forerrant vehicles. The median also provides a refuge area in emergency situations andreduces headlight glare. During the early stages of the development of thealternatives, the standard minimum median width for rural freeways was 46 feet. Thecurrent Caltrans design standard for minimum median width is 18.6 m (61.0 ft). Aspart of its effort to lower environmental impacts of the project, Caltrans retained theold standard, which when adapted to metric units is 13.8 m (45.3 ft). Caltrans policyrequires a design exception approval for the proposed median.

3.3.1.3 Off-rampIn addition, the 1100 m (3600 ft) northbound off ramp at the Upper Haehl CreekInterchange for Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT would exceed the advisory standardfor maximum length of a single lane ramp, and a design exception would be required.Otherwise, these alternatives would meet all design standards.

3.3.2 Estimated Cut and Fill Requirements – Designated Borrow SiteAlternative E3 would not require additional fill material. However, Alternatives C1T,J1T, and LT would be constructed largely on embankment and would require material



from elsewhere. The estimated fill requirements for the valley alternatives areestimated as follows:

� Alternative C1T: 1.8 million cubic meters (2.4 million cubic yards)

� Alternative J1T: 1.9 million cubic meters (2.5 million cubic yards)

� Alternative LT: 2.4 million cubic meters (3.1 million cubic yards)

The construction contractor would determine the specific source of material forearthwork; however, Caltrans has designated a borrow site in the project area as apossible source of material that the contractor may use for the project.

Caltrans has identified the Oil Well Hill area as the designated borrow site. Thematerial in this area is of good quality and suitable for use in embankmentconstruction. The right of way for U.S. 101 at the designated borrow site is wideenough to provide the necessary material for earthwork. The designated borrow sitecould be used for any of the valley alternatives, although the quantity excavatedwould depend on the amount needed for each alternative. In general, the areaexcavated would be similar for all three alternatives. Maps 25-28 in theEnvironmental Atlas (Volume 2) show locations of cut and fill areas.

Because the designated borrow site is a possible choice for obtaining material, it isincluded in this environmental review. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act(SMARA) of 1975 is administered by the California Department of Conservation,Office of Mine Reclamation. Pursuant to SMARA, a permit application, aReclamation Plan, and financial assurance are required before conducting surfacemining operations. Mendocino County has the approval authority for theReclamation Plan.

Contractors may choose to use their own selected sites when advantageous to them(e.g., savings in time or money). However, if the contractor selects an alternativeborrow site(s) for this project, a separate environmental review for the contractor’ssite(s) would be required before the contractor obtains permits and beginsconstruction. The contractor would be responsible for performing and bearing thecost of the environmental review and of obtaining permits if the contractor chooses adifferent site. One drawback to an alternative borrow site would be potential projectdelay caused by the additional environmental review and permit processes. Nodisposal sites would be required for this project.



3.3.3 Relinquishment of Bypassed Portions of Existing U.S. 101According to Section 27 of the California Streets and Highway Code, the State ofCalifornia shall relinquish to any county or city any portion of any state highwaywithin the county or city that has been removed from the state highway system. Thisalso applies to portions of the state highway system that have been bypassed.Relinquishments are made by a resolution of the CTC.

After construction of the proposed project, bypassed portions of U.S. 101 would berelinquished to the City of Willits and Mendocino County. Those portions of U.S.101 located in unincorporated portions of Mendocino County would be relinquishedto Mendocino County, and those portions located in the City of Willits would berelinquished to the City of Willits. Coordination with Mendocino County and theCity of Willits will result in the execution of a Freeway Agreement signed by alljurisdictions involved and will provide the basis for the relinquishment action latertaken by the CTC.

For Alternative E3, the portion of U.S. 101 between the Hollands Lane interchangeand the point at which the bypass route intersects with existing U.S. 101 would berelinquished to the city and county (Map 5). Additionally, this route would provide aconnection between U.S. 101 and S.R. 20. As a result, the portion of existing S.R. 20located between the existing U.S. 101 / S.R. 20 intersection and the proposed U.S.101 / S.R. 20 interchange would be relinquished to the city and county.

Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT would not include the relinquishment of S.R. 20, sincethese alternatives would not provide a new connection between U.S. 101 and S.R. 20west of the City of Willits. As a result, the portion of the route that is currently bothU.S. 101 and S.R. 20 would not be relinquished. This portion of the roadway wouldbe designated S.R. 20.

Alternative C1T would include the relinquishment of existing U.S. 101 to the city andcounty between the proposed Upper Haehl Creek and Truck Scales interchanges(Map 4). Alternatives J1T and LT would include the relinquishment of existing U.S.101 to the city and county between the proposed Upper Haehl Creek and QuailMeadows interchanges (Maps 6 and 7).

According to the California Streets and Highways Code, the State of Californiacannot “relinquish to any county or city any portion of any state highway that has



been superseded by relocation until the department has placed the highway … in astate of good repair.” This includes maintenance such as litter removal, weed control,and tree and shrub trimming, up to the time of relinquishment.

Caltrans will seek to reach an agreement with Mendocino County and the City ofWillits as to what constitutes a “state of good repair” prior to the start of construction.The Streets and Highways Code use of the word “highway” includes bridges,culverts, curbs, drains and all works incidental to highway construction,improvement, and maintenance. The process of presenting the highway in a state ofgood repair cannot include such work as roadway widening, new construction, ormajor reconstruction. It may include preventive maintenance, such as sealing asphaltconcrete surfaces.

3.4 Description of Alternatives Under Consideration

This section describes the distinguishing features of each alternative. The threetruncated valley alternatives are modifications of the original center valleyAlternatives C1, J1, and L. The original alternatives traversed the entire Little LakeValley and rejoined U.S. 101 just north of Willits. The decision to truncate or shortenthese alignments was driven by the need to design a project within existing budgetconstraints. The technical studies prepared for this project have fully analyzed thepotential impacts of the original alignments of Alternatives C1, J1, L and TSM, aswell as the impacts of the truncated versions. These technical studies are available atthe Caltrans Eureka Office and the Willits library. See Section 1.9 for addresses tothese facilities.

In the individual alternative descriptions that follow, each alternative is described inrelation to existing U.S. 101, S.R. 20, and local roads. If a build alternative isselected, portions of U.S. 101 and S.R. 20 will be relinquished to either MendocinoCounty or the City of Willits. Relinquishment is discussed in Section 3.3.3.

Table 3-1 presents the engineering features for each alternative, including totallength, estimated fill requirements, and estimated capital costs.



Table 3-1. Alternatives Summary

Features C1T E3 J1T LT

Length of freeway in km (mi) 10.6 (6.6) 14.8 (9.2) 9.0 (5.6) 9.3 (5.8)

Right of Way ha (ac)* 112 (277) 353 (872) 250 (617) 189 (466)

# of Interchanges 2 3 2 2

# of Lanes 4

Earthwork borrow requirementsCubic meters (cubic yards)*

1.8 million(2.4 million) -- 1.9 million

(2.5 million)2.4 million

(3.1 million)

Roadway Excavation Cubic meters (cubic yards)* -0- 12 million

(16 million) -0- -0-

Median m (ft)* 13.8 (45.3)

Design Speed km/h (mph) 110 (68)

Total Capital Cost Rounded(in $1,000,000’s)*

North:South:Borrow:Total:

$65$43$19$128

$208$93-0-

$301

$93$38$20$151

$67$38$25$130

Source: Caltrans, Design Engineering, May 2001*Estimated

3.4.1 Alternative C1TVolume II, Atlas Map 4 depicts the alignment and structures for Alternative C1T.

Alignment Description: Alternative C1T would begin approximately 0.9 km (0.6mi) south of the proposed Haehl Overhead and would end approximately 1.4 km (0.9mi) south of Reynolds Highway. The overall length of this alternative would beapproximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi). The estimated cost for Alternative C1T is $128million.

South Segment: Alternative C1T would diverge from existing U.S. 101 at theproposed Upper Haehl Creek Interchange and head northwesterly on the existingembankment constructed with excess fill material from a previous highway project.The alignment would run along the east side of the Northwestern Pacific Railroadtracks, turning northeasterly as it passed west of Little Lake Cemetery. Thealignment would cross Center Valley and Hearst-Willits Roads east of Bray Road,then turn northwesterly, skirting the Willits wastewater treatment plant. The



alignment then would cross Outlet and Mill Creeks, which is the approximatelocation of the node that separates the north and south segments of this alternative.

North Segment: The alignment would turn north along the east side of theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad tracks. Near the railroad crossing with existing U.S.101, Alternative C1T would begin paralleling the existing highway. The proposedTruck Scales Interchange would provide an access point along a northeasterly reachof the existing highway. Just north of the interchange near the existing lumber mill,the four-lane alternative would conform to the existing two-lane section of U.S. 101.

Engineering Features: The vertical alignment of Alternative C1T would begin witha gentle downgrade and head northwesterly from the existing freeway section toapproximately East Hill Road. Between East Hill Road and Outlet Creek, the profilegrade would be nearly flat except at bridge approaches and departures.

Throughout the valley, Alternative C1T would cross the 100-year floodplain, but theroadway elevation would remain at least 1 m (3 ft) above the estimated 100-yearwater surface level. Alternative C1T would provide two interchanges that directmotorists to Willits and Fort Bragg. The Upper Haehl Creek Interchange would belocated at the south terminus of the project. The northbound exit ramp would connectwith existing U.S. 101, which would become S.R. 20 at this location. A secondinterchange called the Truck Scales Interchange would be located approximately 8.5km (5.3 mi) north of the Upper Haehl Creek Interchange. For the Truck ScalesInterchange, the ramps would terminate at existing U.S. 101, which would become alocal road in this area.

South of the Truck Scales Interchange, the existing highway would serve as a localroad, providing access to Willits from the interchange. The roadway would retain theexisting at-grade crossing with the Northwestern Pacific Railroad.

Structures: The C1T alignment would include seven mainline structures and tworamp structures. The Floodway Viaduct would span the Little Lake Valley floodwayat Outlet and Mill Creeks near the city’s wastewater treatment plant so thatfloodwaters would not increase significantly due to the freeway. Bridges also wouldbe constructed at Upper Haehl, and Mill Creeks.



3.4.2 Alternative E3Volume II, Atlas Map 5 depicts the alignment and structures for Alternative E3.

Alignment Description: Construction of Alternative E3 would begin approximately0.9 km (0.6 mi) south of the Haehl Overhead and end approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi)north of Reynolds Highway at Oil Well Hill. The overall length of this alternativewould be approximately 14.8 km (9.2 mi). The estimated cost for Alternative E3 is$301 million.

South Segment: Alternative E3 would start at the end of the existing four-lanefreeway section. The E3 alignment would turn to the northwest and cross the existingU.S. 101 near Hollands Lane where an interchange would be constructed. Headinginto the hills west of Willits, Alternative E3 would cross Baechtel Creek and continuenorth on the west side of the Sherwood Valley Indian Rancheria. Alternative E3would continue north across the California Western Railroad (Skunk Train), acrossBroaddus Creek, and S.R. 20 west of the Willits Cemetery. An interchange at S.R. 20would provide access for motorists traveling to Fort Bragg or Willits. The alignmentwould turn to the northeast and continue through the hills, crossing over Exley Laneand under Sherwood Road. Turning north, Alternative E3 would provide a thirdinterchange at Upp Creek. Just north of the Upp Creek Interchange is the approximatelocation of the node dividing the north and south segments of this alternative.

North Segment: The E3 alignment would continue north through the hills and eastof the Brooktrails Community and the Willits Airport. The alignment would crossOutlet Creek, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, and Skow Road before conformingwith existing U.S. 101 north of Reynolds Highway at Oil Well Hill. The alignmentwould continue on the existing two-lane highway to the end of the project study area.

Engineering Features: The vertical alignment of Alternative E3 would begin with aslight downgrade, but after heading into the hills, the grades would increase. Gradeswould rarely be less than 2 percent except at the vertical crests and sags of the curves.Alternative E3 would include truck climbing lanes on a large, steep hill betweenBaechtel Creek and the proposed S.R. 20/U.S. 101 Interchange. The northboundtruck-climbing lane would begin on the west side of the Baechtel Creek Bridge andend about 1.0 km (0.6 mi.) west. The southbound climbing lane would run about 1.5km (0.9 mi) between the top of the hill and the southbound on-ramp at the S.R.20/U.S. 101 Interchange.



Alternative E3 would include three interchanges that act as access points. TheHollands Lane Interchange would be located near the intersection of Hollands Lanewith existing U.S. 101. A rehabilitated, and somewhat realigned Hollands Lane,which would become a portion of South Main Street, would form the local road forthe southerly access to the Willits area.

A second interchange approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi) northwest of the proposedHollands Lane Interchange, which would be known as the S.R. 20/U.S. 101Interchange, would provide access to Willits and Fort Bragg. Here again, themainline of U.S. 101 would cross over the local road, which is S.R. 20. The highwaywould continue as S.R. 20 to the west, but it would become a local road to the east.At Upp Creek, approximately 2.9 km (1.8 mi) northwest of the second interchange, athird interchange would be constructed.

Alternative E3 would cross over the Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracks at the southend of the project at Upper Haehl Creek and again at the north end of the project nearOutlet Creek. Near the S.R. 20/U.S. 101 Interchange, the alignment would cross theCalifornia Western Railroad. None of the crossings would be at-grade.

Structures: Alternative E3 includes ten structures on the mainline, six rampstructures, and two structures for local roads. Major structures include the ExleyLane Bridge, the Upp Creek Bridge, the Wild Oat Canyon Bridge, and the OutletCreek Bridge.

3.4.3 Alternative J1T Volume II, Atlas Map 6 depicts the alignment and structures for Alternative J1T.

Alignment Description: Alternative J1T would begin approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi)south of the Haehl Overhead and end approximately 2.9 km (1.8 mi) south ofReynolds Highway. The overall length of this alternative would be approximately 9.0km (5.6 mi). The estimated cost for J1T is $151 million.

South Segment: Like the other valley alternatives, Alternative J1T would divergefrom existing U.S. 101 at the Upper Haehl Creek Interchange and head northwesterlyon the existing embankment constructed with excess fill material from a previoushighway project. The alignment would run along the east side of the Northwestern



Pacific Railroad tracks for approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi.), turn north to cross CenterValley and Hearst -Willits Roads just east of the Lofling Field baseball diamonds andWillits Rodeo Grounds, then turn northwesterly and skirt west of the city’swastewater treatment plant. The alignment then would cross Mill Creek which is theapproximate location of the node that separates the south and north segments of thisalternative.

North Segment: After crossing the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, Alternative J1Twould provide access to the north side of Willits with the Quail MeadowsInterchange. The mainline would reduce from four lanes to two lanes and conform toexisting U.S. 101 just north of the old truck scales and just south of the at-gradecrossing of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. The alignment would continue on theexisting two-lane highway to the end of the project study area.

Engineering Features: The vertical alignment would begin with a gentle downgradeand head northwesterly from the existing freeway section to approximately East HillRoad. From this point north to the Quail Meadows Interchange, the flat valley floorwould allow grades that are nearly flat except at structure approaches and departures.Throughout the valley, Alternative J1T would cross the 100-year floodplain.However, Alternative J1T would be constructed at least 1 m (3 ft) above theestimated 100-year water surface level.

Alternative J1T would include two interchanges as the access points to Willits andFort Bragg. The Upper Haehl Creek Interchange would be located at the southterminus of the project. The northbound exit ramp would tie directly to existing U.S.101 and would become S.R. 20 at this location. Approximately 6.3 km (3.9 mi)northwest of the proposed Upper Haehl Creek Interchange, the Quail MeadowsInterchange would provide access to Willits and Fort Bragg via Main Street, as U.S.101 would become a local road in this area. For this interchange, the ramps wouldterminate at a realigned Redwood Highway (existing U.S. 101) that would become alocal road in this area. Between the point where existing U.S. 101 would be realignedand where Alternative J1T would connect to existing U.S. 101, the former highway(existing U.S. 101) would become an access road for the mobile home parks andother parcels that had their direct access to U.S. 101 severed.

This alternative would conform to existing U.S. 101 approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi)north of the Quail Meadows Interchange. The existing highway would remain in



service at U.S. 101 north of this point and retain the existing at-grade crossing withthe Northwestern Pacific Railroad.

Structures: The alignment would include seven mainline structures and two rampstructures. The major structure in this group would be the Floodway Viaduct thatwould span the Little Lake Valley floodway.

3.4.4 Alternative LT Volume II, Atlas Map 7 depicts the alignment and structures for Alternative LT.

Alignment Description: Alternative LT would start approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi)south of the Haehl Overhead and end 2.9 km (1.8 mi) south of Reynolds Highway.The overall length of this alternative would be approximately 9.3 km (5.8 mi). Theestimated cost for Alternative LT is $130 million.

South Segment: Like the other center valley alternatives, Alternative LT woulddiverge from existing U.S. 101 at the proposed Upper Haehl Creek Interchange andhead northwesterly on the embankment constructed with excess fill from a previousfreeway project. The alignment would run along the east side of the NorthwesternPacific Railroad tracks, turn north to pass Little Lake Valley Cemetery and acrossEast Hill Road. The alignment would lie immediately west of Bray Road as thealternative crossed Center Valley and Hearst-Willits Roads. Alternative LT thenwould turn westerly as it continued across the valley north of the city’s wastewatertreatment plant. The alignment then would cross Outlet and Mill creeks. Mill Creekis just east of the node that separates the south and north segments of this alternative.

North Segment: After crossing the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, Alternative LTwould provide access to the north side of Willits with the Quail MeadowsInterchange. The roadway would reduce from four to two lanes and conform toexisting U.S. 101 just north of the old truck scales and just south of the at-gradecrossing of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. Alternative LT would be identical toAlternative J1T after crossing the access road for the proposed Quail MeadowsInterchange. The alignment would continue on the existing two-lane highway to theend of the project study area.



Engineering Features: The vertical alignment would begin with a gentle downgradeand head northwesterly from the existing freeway section to approximately East HillRoad. Between East Hill Road and the Quail Meadows Interchange, the flat valleyfloor would allow nearly flat grades except at bridge approaches and departures.Throughout the valley, Alternative LT would cross the 100-year floodplain. Theprofile of Alternative LT mainline would remain at least 1 m (3 ft) above theestimated 100-year water surface level.

Alternative LT would include two interchanges to direct motorists to Willits and FortBragg. The Upper Haehl Creek Interchange would be located at the south terminusof the project. The northbound exit ramp would tie into existing U.S. 101, whichwould become S.R. 20 at this location.

Approximately 6.6 km (4.1 mi) northwest of the proposed Upper Haehl CreekInterchange, the Quail Meadows Interchange would provide access to Willits and FortBragg toward the north end of the project. For this interchange, the ramps wouldterminate at a realigned U.S. 101 that would become a local road in this area.Between the point where existing U.S. 101 would be realigned and where AlternativeLT would connect to existing U.S. 101, the former highway (existing U.S. 101)would become an access road for the mobile home parks and other parcels that haddirect access to U.S. 101 severed.

This alternative would conform to existing U.S. 101 approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi)north of the Quail Meadows Interchange. The existing highway would remain inservice at U.S. 101 north of this point and retain the existing at-grade crossing withthe Northwestern Pacific Railroad.

Structures: Alternative LT would include eight mainline structures and two rampstructures. Its floodway viaduct would span the Little Lake Valley floodway overOutlet and Mill Creeks. This viaduct would be designed to convey the base floodwithout substantially increasing the 100-year water surface elevation. Smallerbridges or culverts would be constructed over other creeks in the area.

3.4.5 No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative, conditions along U.S. 101 would remain as theycurrently exist. The No-Build Alternative would not cause adverse environmental



impacts identified for the proposed project and no mitigation measures would beneeded.

With the No-Build Alternative, no improvements would be made to the existingfacilities though traffic volumes would increase. The No-Build scenario evaluatesfuture traffic conditions with no capacity increasing improvements to the study area.Routine maintenance would continue.

If the No-Build Alternative were chosen, congestion would increase substantially inand around the Willits area. If no bypass is constructed and U.S. 101 is not improvedthrough Willits, as assumed in the No-Build scenario, delay would increaseexponentially. Northbound traffic queues approaching the intersection of U.S.101 atS.R. 20 is expected to back up past Evergreen Village during the peak hour.Congested conditions are expected to occur beyond the peak hour and queues wouldback up for several hours of the day. Average northbound speeds under the No-Buildscenario are expected to be less than 8 miles per hour in the peak hour in downtownWillits (Baechtel Road to Sherwood Road), which is half the speed that northboundtraffic currently experiences in downtown Willits. Traffic collisions increase thesedelays, and at these times, emergency vehicles are delayed even further in gettingassistance to victims.

With the No-Build scenario, interregional travelers will continue to travel throughdowntown Willits and to experience increased delay as a result of increasedcongestion in Willits. Traffic congestion in Willits will worsen as traffic volumesincrease. Northbound traffic will continue to queue-up south to Holly Street orbeyond during peak hour periods. Although traffic operation at the Holly Streetintersection is expected to improve with construction of a Holly Street signal in thenear future, it will not reduce overall delay. Higher traffic congestion will increasefriction associated with commercial driveways, side street traffic, parking andpedestrians. Side street traffic trying to access U.S. 101 increasingly will experiencedelayed access to U.S. 101, further increasing congestion on the side streets leading toMain Street.

With no capital improvements, there is no capital cost for this alternative. As withany highway, there would be continued costs associated with maintenance, periodicrehabilitation, and any safety and operational improvements to the existing facility.Although difficult to quantify, there also would be costs born by the local community



related to air quality, noise, social, and economic impacts; and regional costsassociated with an inefficient transportation system.

Section 2.2, Need for Proposed Bypass Project discusses the existing roadwayconditions in Willits, including problems and deficiencies, collision rates, andpedestrian and bicycle conflicts with interregional traffic that would continue if theNo-Build Alternative were chosen. Section 3.5.1, below, illustrates projected safetyconditions under the No-Build Alternative.

3.5 Comparison of Alternatives

Goals of the project are to improve level of service, improve safety, and reduce delaysfor interregional/interstate traffic on U.S. 101. All of the alternatives underconsideration would meet these three goals by taking interregional traffic out ofWillits. Benefits of the project are improved safety and level of service to localtraffic, reduced noise and vibration on Main Street through Willits, and improvedconditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in Willits. Comparisons among thealternatives for safety and for LOS are discussed below.

3.5.1 Safety Caltrans District 1 Office of Traffic Safety determined the statewide average numberof collisions for a five-year period for each of the alternatives based on averages forsimilar facilities and using forecasted traffic volumes for the year 2028. A summaryof the statewide average total number of collisions and the statewide average numberof fatal plus injury collisions for each alternative is given Tables 3-2 and 3-3.

These averages are based on statewide averages of similar facilities and are forcomparison purposes only. The preferred alternative may not perform as indicated inthe tables.

In the following tables, the column titled “U.S. 101 Freeway” represents the statewideaverage number of collisions for the proposed U.S. 101 facility for each alternative.This is the route intended for interregional traffic on U.S. 101.



Table 3-2. Statewide Average Number of Collisions Over a Five-YearPeriod Using 2028 AADTs

Alternative U.S. 101Freeway

MainStreet S.R. 20 Intersections Total

C1T 179 382 62 112 735

E3 103 241 24 106 474

J1T 239 294 62 113 708

LT 241 294 62 113 710

No Build N/A 734 62 142 938Source: District 1 Traffic Safety Office

As demonstrated in Table 3-2, Alternative E3 has the lowest statewide average totalnumber of collisions, slightly less than half the average number for the No BuildAlternative. This is a result of two factors. First, Alternative E3 moves more trafficoff of Main Street than the other alternatives. Secondly, Alternative E3 provides afreeway the full length of the alternative rather than a combination of freeway andtwo-lane conventional highway provided by the valley alternatives. Freewayfacilities typically have lower collision rates than conventional highways.

The average total number of collisions for the valley alternatives is approximately 22to 25 percent below the No Build Alternative. All of the build alternatives providealternate routes for Main Street traffic, thus the average number of collisions on MainStreet for these alternatives is less than the number for the No Build.

Table 3-3. Statewide Average Number of Fatal Plus Injury CollisionsFive-Year Period Using 2028 AADTs

Alternative U.S. 101Freeway

MainStreet S.R. 20 Intersections Total

C1T 84 178 28 52 342

E3 49 113 11 52 225

J1T 111 138 28 52 329

LT 112 138 28 52 330

No Build N/A 342 28 67 437Source: District 1 Traffic Safety Office



The average number of fatal plus injury collisions for all the build alternatives isbelow the number for the No Build Alternative. Alternative E3 has the lowestnumber at just over half the number on No Build Alternative, while the other freewayalternatives are about 75 percent of the number on the No Build Alternative.

3.5.2 Level of ServiceFigures 3-4 and 3-5 provide a comparison of the alternatives showing average speedsand estimated travel times on U.S. 101 in the project limits from 0.9 km (0.6 mi.)south of the Haehl Overhead to 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) north of Reynolds Highway. Bothtables indicate that freeway travel along all the proposed alternatives will be 70percent shorter for average trips through Little Lake Valley in 2028 compared withthe No Build Alternative.



Figure 3-4. Average Speed on U.S. 101

30

23

6064

58 58

17

58 57 57

64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Existing No Build Alt. C1T Alt. E3 Alt. J1T Alt. LT

Alternatives

Speed(mph)

199820082028

Figure 3-5. Average Travel Time on U.S. 101



18.3

23.9

9.1 9.3 9.2 9.4

32.3

9.2 9.4 9.69.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Alternatives

Minutes

199820082028



The existing intersection of U.S. 101 (Main Street) and S.R. 20 operates at Level ofService F. All of the build alternatives result in significant improvements to thatintersection. Alternative E3 offers the most improvement, with the intersectionoperating at LOS C for both 2008 and 2028. Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT provideLOS D at this intersection in 2008 and 2028.

For alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT, the south and west legs of the intersection wouldbe S.R. 20, and traffic travelling on U.S. 101 destined for Fort Bragg would turn westhere. For Alternative E3, the intersection is strictly where two local roads, MainStreet and Willits-Fort Bragg Road intersect. The junction of U.S. 101 and S.R. 20would be at the interchange west of town, and traffic on U.S. 101 heading toward FortBragg would not need to enter Willits. The removal of some of the traffic from theintersection in town is what allows Alternative E3 to provide a better level of serviceat that intersection than the valley alternatives provide.

No traffic queues or congestion related delay is anticipated on the freeway portion ofthe bypass alternatives through the 20-year time horizon after construction. With theNo-Build Alternative, northbound traffic approaching the U.S. 101 (Main Street)/S.R.20 junction would back up south past Evergreen Village. Currently, these longqueues limit and often result in delayed access to U.S. 101 (Main Street) for side-street traffic. This condition would occur with higher frequency and duration infuture years if no improvements were made to the system.

No delay is anticipated on the freeway portion of the bypass alternatives through the20-year time horizon after construction. If the No-Build Alternative were chosen,future delay would be considerably higher in and around Willits. Currently, overalltotal delay for the study area is 105 hours in the peak hour, and if no improvementsare made to the system, this delay would increase to 485 hours in 2028, a 350 percentincrease. Figure 3-6 shows the total peak hour delays on the system through theproject limits. With the No-Build Alternative, congestion in and around Willitsincreasingly would delay interregional traffic. Existing average speeds are 30 mphfor the project study area and, with the No-Build Alternative, would average 17 mphin 2028. This decreases the average speed by 13 mph and increases the travel time by14 minutes per vehicle.



Figure 3-6. Total Peak Hour Delay

105

225

66 45 66

485

66102102102

60

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Alternatives

Speed(mph)

199820082028

LOS A would be maintained on all freeway portions of the bypass alternatives.Special holiday weekends such as Labor Day and Memorial Day are exceptions,though levels of service would not be expected to drop below LOS B. Levels ofservice on the two-lane highway section north of Willits would be LOS D in 2008and LOS E in 2028 for Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT. The level of service for theNo-Build Alternative would be LOS F by 2008 and beyond.

All of the build alternatives--C1T, E3, J1T, and LT—would provide LOS C or betterfor interregional traffic on the roadway to be constructed. The project traffic report,for the period through the year 2028, anticipates that travel on the freeway mainlineswould operate at LOS A.

Traffic congestion and lack of capacity on the existing highway result in lengthyqueues. This is especially evident north of the city during peak traffic volumes onholiday weekends and special events, when southbound queues may extend as farnorth as Reynolds Highway. Any of the build alternatives will allow through trafficto bypass Willits where the most severe congestion occurs. Diverting heavy trafficaround the congested area should eliminate, or at least relieve, the queuing on theexisting highway. Thus, although Alternatives C1T, J1T, and LT will make nocapital improvements north of the conform points, the existing highway north of thesepoints is expected to operate better than under the No Build Alternative.

Alternative E3 would provide LOS A on the mainline to Oil Well Hill.



All of the build alternatives would reduce volumes on existing U.S. 101 (Main Street)in Willits in comparison to the No Build Alternative.

Table 3-4 summarizes the existing traffic volumes as well as the projected 2008 and2028 traffic volumes for each of the alternatives.

Table 3-4. Traffic Volumes on U.S. 101

Traffic Volumes

Peak Hour (vph) Annual Average Daily Traffic (vpd)

Alternative 1998 2008 2028 1998 2008 2028

Existing 1,920 25,700

No Build 2,470 3,060 32,600 40,800

C1T 920 1,150 12,300 15,300

E3 1,270 1,590 16,900 21,200

J1T 1,080 1,350 14,400 18,000

LT 1,080 1,350 14,400 18,000

Vph – vehicles per hourVpd – vehicles per day

3.6 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From FurtherStudy

A range of reasonable alternatives that potentially could meet the stated projectpurpose and need were considered by the Project Development Team (PDT), theWillits Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), and the Section 404 Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) signatory agencies. Alternative alignments were formulatedand studied. Many of the alternatives studied had a number of alignment variationsresulting from different interchange locations and combinations. Some of these havebeen eliminated, and some have remained viable for detailed study in this DEIR/EIS.



The study for the Willits Bypass began in the early 1960s. However, due to lack offunding and higher priority projects, the Willits Bypass project was delayed. In 1998,Caltrans re-initiated formal studies.

Five alternatives are studied in this DEIR/EIS. Four of these are freeway alternativesand one is the No Build Alternative. During the project development process,Caltrans held meetings with City of Willits staff, the TAG and interested communitygroups to develop alternatives for study. Several elected bodies such as the WillitsCity Council, the Mendocino Planning Commission, the Mendocino Board ofSupervisors and the Brooktrails Township CSD also provided input on alternativedesign alignments.

In 1988, Alternatives A through E along with the No Build Alternative were studiedin the Project Study Report (PSR), prepared for the California TransportationCommission (CTC). The six alternatives were presented to the public at aninformational public meeting held in Willits on April 6, 1988. On December 5, 1989,Caltrans conducted additional scoping sessions. As a result of the meetings, the PDTadded Alternatives F through R to the six listed in the PSR for a total of 19alternatives to be studied during the project development process. Map 29 in VolumeII shows these alternatives.

In 1992, based on the recommendations from the Willits Traffic AdvisoryCommittee, Caltrans investigated a city street type alternative parallel to U.S. 101.This became the Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative. Caltransalso studied a generic two-lane alternative and determined that a two-lane bypasswould not achieve a level of service C. Reasons for eliminating both alternatives arediscussed in Section 3.6.1 and Section 3.6.2, respectively.

In 1993, two more alternatives were recommended for study. USEPA suggestedstudy of Alternative K2 and the Willits City Council suggested study of AlternativeL. The reasons for eliminating Alternative K2 are discussed in Table 3-5.

In early 1993, TAG and PDT meetings were held in Willits to discuss Caltrans staffrecommendations to drop a number of design alternatives from further considerationin the project development process. Caltrans staff prepared an alternative locationmap, a matrix that illustrated the various alternative selection criteria and a list ofcriteria for interpreting the engineering and environmental matrix. The intended



purpose of developing the criteria and matrix was to rank and evaluate thealternatives, which included a combination of alternatives, ranging from alternativesthat bypassed Little Lake Valley in the hills to the east (K) and to the west (E). TheWillits Bypass Study Team (Caltrans staff) evaluated and ranked alternatives basedon ability to achieve the following criteria: cost; hazardous waste conflicts;interregional traffic delay reduction; accident reduction; Section 4(f) impacts; wetlandimpacts; upland habitat impacts; sensitive species impacts; residential, agricultural,and business relocations; service to local traffic; and engineering feasibility.

Refer to Appendix P for the recommendation matrix comparing the alternatives. Theevaluated each of the alternatives against several criteria, using a ranking of“excellent” to “poor.” “Excellent” represented an alternative that is superior withrespect to a particular criterion and “poor” represented an alternative that is poor withrespect to a given criterion. The PDT rejected several of the alternatives for thereasons shown in the matrix and recommended further study on Alternatives A, C1,J1, E3, TSM and No Build.

On May 26, 1994, the NEPA 404 MOU signatory agencies met and agreed to theproject purpose and need statement, modal choice statement, criteria for selection ofalternatives and the range of alternatives to be studied further. Alternatives C1, E3,J1, K, K2, L, TSM, and No Build constituted the range of alternatives. Preliminaryengineering and environmental investigations continued on these alternatives, but dueto funding shortages and resource redirection, by 1995, progress was stopped. In1998, new funding and resources were allocated and studies resumed on thealternatives approved under the NEPA 404 MOU process.

Throughout the scoping sessions, suggestions for various mid-valley interchangelocations arose along with variations of a rail alternative. Alternatives F through Rcame out of the 1988-1989 scoping sessions. In 1998, Caltrans commissioned aValue Analysis (VA) Study that evaluated many of the F through R Alternatives.Several of the VA proposals dealt with reducing construction for the northernportions of the alternatives. Modifying the valley alternatives to the truncatedalternatives addressed this concern. A number of alternatives included at-gradeintersections and were rejected due to safety concerns. A number of VA study teamproposals were implemented. Appendix P summarizes the highlights of the VAstudy.



After extensive engineering and environmental investigations, Caltrans determinedthat Alternatives K and K2 were no longer prudent or feasible and the TSMalternative did not meet the project’s purpose and need, and therefore, reduced thenumber of alternatives to C1, J1, L, E3 and No Build. In Fall 2000, due to budgetconstraints, Caltrans decided to truncate or shorten Alternatives C1, J1 and L. Thedecision to truncate the valley alternatives resulted in Alternatives C1T, J1T and LT.These truncated alternatives were shortened to conform to the existing highway at thenorth end of the project area and to reduce the costs of former Alternatives C1, J1 andL. Table 3-5 summarizes the reasons why alternatives were eliminated from furtherenvironmental analysis in the DEIR/DEIS.

Table 3-5. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Study

Alternatives Reason for Elimination from Further Study

Alternatives A, A1, A2, A3 & A4. CTC adoptedAlternative A as the original alignment in 1962.Versions of Alternative A known as A1 - A4identified different combinations of interchangelocations.

The PDT rejected Alternative A due to the substantialpotential impacts to wetlands and other sensitivenatural habitat. Alternative A also required time-consuming and extensive construction techniques toaddress embankment settlement and consolidationcaused by poor soil conditions in northern Little LakeValley.

Alternative B. In an effort to modify AlternativeA to avoid wetlands, Alternative B diverged fromAlternative A beginning just north of thecrossing of Hearst-Willits Road, then veered tothe east and skirted the eastern limits of LittleLake Valley.

Preliminary investigations revealed that Alternative B,rather than having lower wetland impacts, actuallyhad higher wetland impacts than Alternative A. Inaddition, a later alignment, Alternative K, betterrepresented the intent of Alternative B.

Alternative C. Similar to Alternative B,Alternative C diverged from Alternative Abeginning just north of the crossing of Hearst-Willits Road. From there, Alternative C skirtedthe west side of Little Lake Valley and rejoinedAlternative A and the existing highway on OilWell Hill. Alternative C1T developed fromAlternative C. Versions of Alternative C knownas C1-C4 identified different combinations ofinterchange locations.

Alternative C1 was retained for further study. ThePDT rejected other versions of Alternative C becauseof the substantial potential impacts to wetlands anddue to the high cost and growth-inducing impacts ofadditional valley interchanges. Mendocino Countyrequested Caltrans to investigate the Alternative C/Jin 1993. This was a combination of what is now thesouth portion of C1T and the north portion of J1.Most of Alternative J1 north of Quail Meadows is nolonger under consideration, and hence, the C/Jalternative is no longer considered viable.

Alternative D traversed the hilly terrain west ofWillits and was similar to E3 but closer to Willits.

The PDT rejected Alternative D based on itssimilarity to Alternative E and due to substantialpotential impacts to wetlands and riparian habitatalong the north end of Little Lake Valley.



Alternative E ran through the hills near Willitscemetery. The north end connected toAlternative A after traversing the hills west of theold Louisiana Pacific mill site. Versions ofAlternative E known as E1-E3 had differentcombinations of interchange locations.

Alternative E3 was retained for further studies. ThePDT rejected other versions of Alternative E3 due topotential impacts to residential development and theestimated higher cost for interchanges at Wild OatCanyon and at Oil Well Hill.

Alternative F proposed relocating theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad tracks through aportion of Willits and using the resulting right ofway for a low speed expressway.

The PDT rejected Alternative F due to its similaritywith Alternative O and due to the high cost ofrelocating railroad tracks.

Alternative G describes many variations ofalternatives from the Project Study Report thatconnected with US 101 south of Oil Well Hilland north of Haehl Creek.

The PDT rejected Alternative G because there wasno cohesive alternative described from the publicscoping sessions. Many of the proposals looselydefined under this alternative were studied asvariations of other alternatives.

Alternative H came out of the scoping sessionsas an alignment that would relocate U.S. 101 atleast 8 miles west of Willits to remove noise andair pollution from town.

The PDT rejected this alternative due to the highcosts and because it was outside the scope of thestudy area.

Alternative I was a tunnel located roughly in theAlternative E corridor. It was suggested as ameans of reducing impacts to Willits Cemeteryand the other properties along the proposed D/Ealignments.

With an estimated cost of $250 million to $300 millionfor the tunnel alone, the PDT rejected this alternative.

Alternatives K and K2 were studied under theNEPA/404 MOU process. Alternative K was aneasterly wetland avoidance alternative locatedin the hills to the east of Reynolds Highway.Alternative K2 followed K for about the first 1.2miles, then continued north along the base ofthe hills on the east side of the valley.

With concurrence from the NEPA 404 agencies, thePDT rejected both alternatives. The PDT felt thatconstructing facilities on the east side of the valleyresulted in poor service in terms of interchangelocations. Studies indicated that both alternativesgenerated unavoidable impacts to wetlands,archaeological resources, and the destruction ofmillions of Baker’s Meadowfoam plants, a listedspecies of concern and listed as rare under theCalifornia Plant Protection Act. Both alternativesrequired deep cuts in active landslide areas andtraversed material of questionable stability.

Alternatives J1 and J2 followed the railroadtracks after leaving existing U.S. 101 at thesouth end of Willits, skirted the rodeo grounds,skirted the sewage plant to the east, andheaded back toward U.S. 101, conforming justnorth of the Willits northerly city limits.

The PDT rejected J2 because it resulted in poorservice in terms of interchange locations and couldhave growth-inducing impacts. The PDT retainedAlternative J1 for further studies. Alternative J1 wastruncated to become J1T.



Alternative L is a center valley alternative thatavoids large wetland impacts along its northernhalf by conforming to the alignment of theexisting highway and railroad.

The PDT retained Alternative L for further studies.Alternative L, which continued to a point on Oil WellHill, was later truncated to become LT.

Alternative M offered an expressway throughWillits skirting the wastewater treatment plantand corporation yard and widened existing U.S.101 at the north end of the project to four lanes.

Based on its similarity with Alternative J, andbecause of safety concerns and whether anexpressway could meet the project’s purpose andneed, the PDT dropped Alternative M.

Alternative N departed from U.S. 101 nearHolland’s Lane, then skirted the east side of theMormon Church property crossing Haehl Creek,passing over East Hill Road and the railroadtracks, then paralleled the tracks with a two laneroadway through Willits.

A portion of Alternative N included four lanes withturn pockets and a portion included a continuous leftturn lane. The PDT rejected this alternative basedon its similarity to Alternative O.

Alternative O was similar to Alternative N,paralleling the Northwestern Pacific Railroadtracts. Alternative O proposed a four-laneboulevard expressway that continued beyondthe old truck scales and railroad crossing northof Willits.

The PDT rejected this alternative due to substantialpotential impacts to multi-dwelling residential unitsand potential impacts to Section 4(f) eligibleproperties.

Alternative P was a couplet through Willits. Acouplet is a pair of one-way city streets withtraffic running in opposite directions usuallyseparated by a city block.

A preliminary traffic analysis revealed that thisalternative would operate poorly because of thesubstantial out-of-direction travel it required. Citingthe failure to meet project objectives of providing asafe and efficient highway, the PDT rejected thisalternative.

Alternative Q involved a concept of two-laneroutes with increased railroad use.

The modal analysis indicated a need for a highwaysolution rather than rail and, citing failure to meetproject objectives of providing a safe and efficienthighway, the PDT rejected this alternative.

Alternative R was a couplet through Willits. Thealignment identified Main Street as thenorthbound lanes and suggested southboundlanes to the west of U.S. 101.

Like Alternative P, this alternative had widelyseparated north/southbound legs that required out-of-direction travel. Citing the failure to meet projectobjectives of providing a safe and efficient highway,the PDT rejected this alternative.

3.6.1 Alternative TSMTransportation System Management (TSM) involves using existing transportationfacilities for maximum benefit and making generally low cost improvements ratherthan constructing more expensive new or additional facilities. At the request of



members of the TAG and the PDT, the TSM alternative was developed as a non-freeway study alternative. Because of the fragmented local street network and thenarrow roadway along Railroad Avenue, the Willits Bypass TSM alternative includedconstruction of new roadway segments and purchase of numerous right of wayparcels. This alternative paralleled existing U.S. 101 through Willits and provided atgrade intersections including signalized and unsignalized local road connections.Community members with environmental concerns initially supported the TSMalternative. However, changes were made to meet City of Willits concerns andCaltrans design standards. Due primarily to high cost and severe environmentalimpacts, there appears to be limited public support for the current TSM alternative.

In February 2001, Caltrans management and FHWA considered but eliminated theTSM alternative because it would not attain the project purpose and need. The TSMalternative would operate as a parallel arterial to existing U.S. 101 and would providethe least delay reduction of all the alternatives. In addition, traffic studies showedthat Alternative TSM was not expected to reduce the number of collisions whencompared with the No Build Alternative. The freeway study alternatives, however,are expected to provide a substantial reduction in collisions, approximately 18 percentfor the valley alternatives and 30 percent for Alternative E3.

The TSM alternative would have the greatest impact on community housing stock.The alternative would result in the removal of 140 residential units, including 104single-family homes, 15 multi family units and 21 mobile homes. In addition, 28commercial and industrial business would be relocated (including one utility which,alone, would cost an estimated $25 million to relocate). There would not besufficient housing in Willits for the large number of residents who would be displacedby the TSM alternative.

The TSM Alternative was the only alternative that would result in unavoidableadverse impacts to eligible historic architectural properties, including numerousstructures within block 3 of the Willits Historic District. The TSM alternative wouldalso have direct impact to those land uses in close proximity to its alignment.Possible impacts could include increased noise, increased traffic volumes, reductionin parking supply, and reduced access in the vicinity. These impacts would likelymodify the existing character of the area. Finally, the TSM alternative had the



potential to physically divide the community of Willits and conflicts with the City’sgoal to provide a “livable, walkable” community.

On April 6, 2001, Caltrans submitted a letter, on behalf of Caltrans and FHWA, toeach NEPA/404 resource agency informing them of Caltrans and FHWA’s decisionto eliminate the TSM alternative from further analysis (Appendix G). Caltrans andFHWA followed the letter with a telephone call to each agency. Each agency thatwas contacted expressed its lack of objection to eliminating the TSM alternative.USEPA expressed concern about eliminating the TSM alternative but said that it didnot object to its elimination from further analysis.

3.6.2 Two-Lane AlternativeIn 1992, the California Transportation Commission (CTC), recognizing theimportance of the Willits Bypass, programmed $60.5 million for the project. Due tolimited funding available for new projects, the CTC programmed only the funding foran initial two-lane expressway within an ultimate four-lane freeway right of way.

Following programming in 1992, Caltrans and FHWA found that there was no localor regional agency support for a two-lane expressway. The City, County, MendocinoCouncil of Governments (MCOG), and the North Coastal Counties SupervisorsAssociation (representing the eight northwestern counties in California)recommended that funding be provided for initial four-lane freeway construction forthe following reasons:

� Inconsistency with state and regional planning

� Poor level of service and lack of passing opportunities

� Safety concerns as a result of at-grade intersections

� Possible need for traffic signals

� Having to impact the corridor a second time when upgrading to 4-lane freeway

Responding to input from these agencies/organizations and the public, the CTC in the1998 STIP changed the project from a two-lane expressway to a four-lane freeway,adding additional funding to the project. By this time, Regional TransportationPlanning Agencies (RTPAs) had responsibility for 75 percent of the funding for newhighway improvements. The MCOG chose to commit nearly all of its availablefunding ($17 million) to the project to fully fund a four-lane freeway. The 2002 STIP



includes approximately $116 million for construction and right of way for theproject.5

Throughout the planning and environmental process for this project, a four-lanefreeway project was being pursued, even when a two-lane expressway was to be thefirst phase.

Caltrans, through its Project Development Team (PDT), worked cooperatively withresource agencies, local agencies and the public in the development of the "purposeand need" statement, the alternatives, and in making decisions on alternatives to bedropped.

In 2000, after all technical studies were completed, the Willits Environmental Center(WEC) asked the PDT to add a two-lane alternative on “one of the valleyalignments.” In response, Caltrans and FHWA analyzed the concept but chose not toadd a two-lane alternative because a two-lane alternative would not meet the "purposeand need" for the project. The "purpose and need" calls for a facility that wouldprovide a "C" Level of Service (LOS) through the 20-year design period (i.e., 2023).A 2-lane facility would provide a "D" LOS at peak hour upon construction (2008),and would diminish to LOS "E" within the 20-year period.6 LOS "E" exists when afacility approaches capacity during peak traffic flows. As such, to develop a two-lanehighway would result in a facility that would be functionally obsolete within thedesign period. Based on the foregoing, Caltrans and FHWA have determined that atwo-lane alternative would be eliminated from further environmental analysis andshould not be considered.

3.6.3 Modal Choice DecisionThe NEPA/Section 404 MOU stipulates that there will be concurrence over thechoice of transportation mode early in the planning process. Caltrans and FHWAanalyzed the feasibility and practicability of employing alternative methods ofreducing traffic volumes on U.S. 101 in Willits. Their studies concluded that local 5 As noted in Section 2.5 Funding and Schedule, additional state and regional funds will beacquired to fully fund construction of the project.

6 It is important to recognize that LOS of "C" on a 4-lane freeway is substantially different than LOS"C" on a 2-lane highway, in that a freeway offers continuous passing opportunities. On a 2-lane road,passing opportunities are affected by volume and sight distance.



and regional rail is less feasible for the Willits/Ukiah area than increased bus transit,and interregional passenger rail ridership would not affect a significant change onWillits area highway traffic volumes. Low ridership projections are due to lowpopulation numbers and low densities. Due to these low ridership projections, neitherbus transit nor passenger rail would reduce substantially the number of singleoccupancy vehicles in Willits enough to cause a notable reduction in traffic volumeson U.S. 101. In addition, short average trip lengths (two miles) with attendantwaiting and travel to rail stations also make transit less attractive in the Willits area.Further, the Mendocino County RTP recognizes that the rural and sparsely populatednature of Mendocino County is most conducive to personal car use as a transportationmode. Consequently, the county’s RTP focuses on improvements to streets, roads,and highway.

Willits Bypass EIS/EIR Page4- 1

CHAPTER 4 Affected EnvironmentThis chapter describes the environment likely to be affected by the project. Thepurpose of the chapter is to give the reader background information to evaluate theimpacts of the project which are described in Chapter 5, EnvironmentalConsequences.

4.1 Topography and Climate

The proposed Willits Bypass is located within the Mendocino Highlandsphysiographic area. The Mendocino Highlands are the ridges and valleys that have ageneral north-northwest trend that is sub-parallel to the California coastline locatedapproximately 35 km (22 mi) to the west.

Although elevations in the region are moderate, relief is sometimes considerable. Thehighest peak surrounding the Little Lake Valley has an elevation of 1,010 m (3,320 ft)and the valley floor drops to an elevation of 400 m (1,320 ft). Little Lake Valley andvalleys located to the north are drained by the Eel River system. Valleys locatedsouth of Little Lake Valley drain to the Russian River system.

The project area has a Mediterranean climate. Summers are warm to hot withoccasional temperatures over 38 °C (100 °F). Winters are cool to cold and can beaccompanied by rare light snowfall. Frost and fog conditions can be expected tooccur anytime throughout the winter months.

Rainfall is primarily concentrated between the months of October through March.Average annual rainfall in the Little Lake Valley is approximately 1,350 millimeters(mm) (53 inches [in]).

4.2 Geology

4.2.1 Regional Geology The project area is located within the California Coast Range Geomorphic Province,which is characterized by numerous northwesterly trending geologic structures. Thegeologic history and structure of the California Coast Range Geomorphic Province is

Chapter 4 Affected Environment


extremely complex due to nearly continuous tectonic deformation. Approximately 80million years ago, folding and faulting of uplifted rock formed the MendocinoHighlands most of which have remained exposed since their initial uplifting.Approximately 25 to 30 million years ago, the San Andreas Fault System beganforming. The San Andreas Fault System now depicts the division between the Pacificand North American Tectonic Plates. Continued deformation has progressed toproduce the present day geologic structures that are seen in the California CoastRanges.

Several geologic conditions are present in the area, which may influence the selectionof a preferred alternative, and the manner in which it would be constructed.Information about these conditions is presented below and the potential impacts ofthese conditions are discussed in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences.

4.2.2 SoilsThe various types of soil in the project area correspond approximately with the majortopological features. The Cole soil is formed in recent alluvium and comprises mostof the valley soil. The Pinole-Yokayo-Redvine soil is formed on alluvium terraces.The Yorkville-Yorktree-Squawrock soil is an upland soil formed under grass andoaks on unstable side slopes of hills and mountains where the underlying bedrock isgraywacke, chloritic schist or shale. The Casabonne-Wohly-Pardaloe is an uplandsoil formed under forest where the underlying bedrock is Franciscan sandstone. Thecharacteristics of these soils are summarized in Table 4-1.

Cole Soil underlies Alternatives C1T, J1T and LT. Alternative E3 is underlainprimarily by Yorkville-Yorktree-Squawrock Soil and Casabonne-Wohly-PardaloeSoil.



Table 4-1. Summary of General Soil Characteristics

Character ColePinole-Yokayo-Redvine

Yorkville-Yorktree-

SquawrockCasabonne-

Wohly-Pardaloe

Surface Depth 203 mm 254 mm 457 mm 381 mm

Surface Color Dark grey-brown Brown Brown-yellow Reddish-yellow

Soil Type Clay-loam Gravelly-loam Gravelly-loam Gravelly-loam

Total Depth 1270 mm 1550 mm 1525 mm 1448 mm

Drainage Poor Good Poor Moderate

Permeability Slow Slow Slow-moderate Moderate

Available WaterCapacity High High Moderate-high Low-moderate

Run-off Ponded Medium Rapid Very rapid

SurfaceDrainage Required NA Saturated NA

Shrink-SwellPotential High Moderate High Moderate

Load Support Limited Subject tocompaction Low soil strength Moderate

Hazard ofErosion

Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate-high Very high

Source: Willits Bypass Geotechnical Report, Caltrans, 1999NA – information not available.

4.2.3 Seismic ActivityThe California Coast Range Province is one of the most seismically active regions inthe world. However, within the vicinity of Willits, little significant seismicdisturbance has occurred historically when compared to adjacent regions. Therelative absence of consequential seismic activity does not preclude the possibilitythat Willits will experience a large-scale event in the future. Two faults, Maacamaand San Andreas, are present in the region. Table 4-2 summarizes pertinent dataassociated with these faults (Map 10).

A maximum credible earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that appearspossible based on presently known geologic evidence. The maximum credibleearthquake in the project area would result in a maximum credible acceleration of 0.7 g.



Table 4-2. Seismic Activity

FaultDistance toProject SiteKm (mi)

Maximum CredibleEarthquake Magnitude

Richter Scale

Maximum CredibleEarthquakeProject Area

Maacama 0 0 7.25 0.7 G

San Andreas 47 29 8.00 0.2 GSource: Willits Bypass Geotechnical Report, Caltrans, 1999

4.2.4 LandslidesSeveral naturally occurring types of landslides are present throughout the Willits area.The primary types of landslides present within the project limits are landslide slumps,translational and rotational landslides, and massive earthflows (Map 10). Thegeologic units that are of most concern, in respect to landslides, are the Plio-Pleistocene Non-Marine Sedimentary Deposits (PPNMSD) and the FranciscanMelange Unit (FMU).

The primary types of landslides that occur on hill slopes underlain by the PPNMSDare landslide slumps, and shallow to slightly deep-seated translational and rotationallandslides. Within the PPNMSD, landslides tend to develop on moderately steep andsteeper slopes where local ground water sources are present. Hill slopes comprised ofthe PPNMSD that are disturbed by road construction can develop ground distresswith horizontal slope angles as low as 26 degrees.

The FMU is highly susceptible to the generation of landslides, even on gentle slopes.Soil creep, landslide slumps, shallow to moderately deep-seated translational androtational landslides, and moderately deep to deep-seated massive earthflows can becommon along hill slopes underlain by the FMU. Hill slopes subject to soil creep andearthflows usually have a hummocky appearance and can have horizontal slopeangles as low as 14 to 17 degrees.

4.2.5 Mineral ResourcesNo mineral or aggregate quarries are operating currently in the project area. Threesand and gravel quarries are operating south of Willits, outside the project area, andtherefore, would not be impacted by the proposed project.



4.3 Land Use

4.3.1 Land Use Regulation Mendocino County, the City of Willits, and the Brooktrails Township CommunityServices District (Brooktrails) are the jurisdictions responsible for preparing land useplanning documents and making decisions that affect land use in and around theproject area. Land use planning activities in Mendocino County and Willits aredirected by their General Plans, which lay out a blueprint for the physical, economic,and social development of community and county. A Specific Plan is the guidingdocument for development in Brooktrails.

The Mendocino County General Plan includes a wide variety of goals and policies toimplement state planning laws; the protection of agricultural land and themaintenance of the county's natural resources are dominant themes in this document.In addition, the county’s General Plan recognizes the importance of improving thetransportation system including the State Highway System. For example, within theCirculation Element are statements regarding the need to improve U.S. 101 aroundWillits to improve safety and the efficiency of the system. The General Plan alsorecognizes the Willits Bypass as one of two higher priority projects in the countyalthough no specific route is identified.

Willits is also in the process of adopting a Bike and Pedestrian Plan and a DowntownSpecific Plan as part of its General Plan. Both of these plans are being developedwithin the context of a potential future bypass of the city by U.S. 101. The Bike andPedestrian Plan will address outstanding safety issues for bicyclists and pedestrians,particularly along heavily traveled corridors within the city, such as the existing U.S.101. The Downtown Specific Plan includes measures to improve the appearance ofdowntown Willits along the existing U.S. 101 corridor. The prospect of a bypassaround Willits creates the possibility for substantial improvements along the currentfacility through the city. The Downtown Specific Plan will discuss the potential forwider sidewalks and fewer lanes of traffic along this corridor.

The Willits General Plan includes many policies designed to address the requirementsof state planning laws and to achieve a self sustaining, small town community bybalancing jobs, commercial development, and residential land uses. However, onepolicy stands out in the discussion of the Willits Bypass. Policy 2.240 of the GeneralPlan indicates that Willits supports the “proposed U.S. 101 bypass of Willits,



including provisions for direct access from the bypass to the downtown Willitscommercial area.” The General Plan includes a Preferred Future Roadway NetworkMap that shows a bypass located east of Willits in approximately the same location asAlternative J1T. However, the map includes a notation that the exact location of thebypass will be determined at a later date.

4.3.2 Existing Land Use Mendocino County - Land use in the Little Lake Valley area can be characterized asagricultural production interspersed with large lots of rural residential uses. Theprimary farming activities are the production of hay and livestock, most commonly,sheep, cattle, and horses. A more detailed discussion of local agriculture andfarmland is located in Section 4.4. Farmlands.

Willits - Within Willits, there is a variety of land uses including commercial, singlefamily residential, and industrial uses. The city’s current General Plan land use mapis shown in Figure 4-1. Commercial uses are located generally along or near U.S.101 or S.R. 20. S.R. 20 serves as a generalized boundary that divides the newer andhighway commercial uses (south) from the older and more locally related commercialuses to the north. The older and historic residential areas are located east of townbetween U.S. 101 and the railroad tracks. East of U.S. 101 is a mixture of older andnewer residential units. Industrial uses are located along the periphery of the citylimits. Table 4-3 shows the acreage of land used for each land use type within thecity.

Table 4-3. Existing Land Use in the City of Willits

Land Use Amount ZonedHectares (acres)

Amount DevelopedHectares (acres)

Residential 263 (650) 135 (334)

Commercial 98 (241) 47 (116)

Industrial 262 (646) 58 (144)

Public Facilities 71 (174) N/A N/A

Open Space 14 (35) N/A N/A

Total 707 (1,746) ---- ----Source: Willits General Plan, 1992



Adjacent to Proposed Interchanges – Quail Meadows (Alternatives J1T and LT):Partially located in the northern tip of the City of Willits and partially in the adjacentunincorporated area. Zoning in this portion of Willits is C-G, General Commercial.Land use in Mendocino County west of this interchange is SR, Suburban Residential.To the east, land use is AG, Agricultural.

Upp Creek (Alternatives E3): Located in unincorporated Mendocino County, north ofthe City of Willits and west of existing U.S. 101. Land use in this portion of thecounty is SR, Suburban Residential.

Truck Scales Interchange (Alternative C1T): northernmost interchange, outside of theCity of Willits. Land use on both sides of U.S. 101 at this interchange is agricultural.

Hollands Lane Interchange (Alternative E3): At Hollands Lane, near the City ofWillits’ southwestern edge, adjacent to both city and county land. Within the city,zoning is R-S, Residential-Suburban. The area in Mendocino County immediately tothe west of this interchange is RL, Rangelands. Immediately south of theinterchange, land use is Suburban Residential. To the south of the interchange, butnot adjacent to it, is a large area designated as RMR20, Remote Residential withminimum 20-acre parcels.

Upper Haehl Creek Interchange (southern interchange for Alternatives C1T, LT, andJ1T): located east of Willits’ southern tip, entirely within Mendocino County. Theuse surrounding this interchange is Rangelands. Suburban Residential use is locatedto the west of the interchange. To the north, there is an area of RR5, RuralResidential with 5-acre minimum parcels. South of the interchange is a large area ofRemote Residential with 20-acre minimum parcels.

Brooktrails - During the 1960s, the redwood and mixed forest area northwest of theCity of Willits was subdivided into approximately 6,000 lots ranging in size fromabout 680 square meters (7,300 square feet [sq ft]) to 93 ha (230 ac). Developmentwas intended for vacation or second homes, but gradually the development hasbecome one of year-round permanent residents. Currently, about 1,250 residentiallots are developed along with a golf course, limited commercial uses, and acommunity center. Although Brooktrails is an unincorporated area, it is served by acommunity services district that provides city services such as sewer, domestic water



and fire protection. Water supply and the development of a second access road intoBrooktrails are the most immediate concerns that will affect its future development.

Joint Development – The City of Willits and the County of Mendocino aredeveloping the Redwood Empire Railroad History Project, a 10-acre educational andrecreational complex next to the Mendocino County Museum. The project fundingincludes TEA-21 funds and is approved by the Mendocino Council of Governmentsand the CTC. The City of Willits has planned the Railroad History Projectimprovements to prevent conflict with all of the proposed build alternatives. Thisproject is discussed further in Sections 4.15 and 5.14. A letter from the City ofWillits discussing the cooperative development of the city parcel and the bypass isincluded in Appendix N.



Figure 4-1. Willits General Plan Land Use Diagram

Place-holder


Page 4-10 Willits Bypass EIS/EIR

4.4 Farmlands

Today, the primary farming activity in the project area is the production of hay andlivestock, most commonly, sheep, cattle, and horses (Map 13). The foothills west ofWillits are used extensively as rangeland.

Mendocino County’s prime farmland is found in several small Mayacamas andCoastal Range Mountain valleys. Many of these intermontane valleys have alluvialfans, stream and lake deposits: these areas are subject to inundation makingagricultural activity difficult if not impossible. Much of the County’s higher land ishome to the County’s urban centers, which precludes the full utilization of its primefarmland.

The State Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring programhas not mapped Mendocino County; as a result, land use information, such asfarmland conversions and other pertinent information, has not been compiled.However, the agricultural census does give some insight to the existing condition offarmland utilization in the county (Table 4-4).

According to the agricultural census for 1997, Mendocino County has seen anincrease in the number of full-time farms from 532 in 1992 to 564 in 1997. However,there is a decrease from 725,118 acres in 1992 to 638,566 acres of land in agriculturaluse in 1997. Mendocino County has seen a marked decrease of 56 percent in theacreage of land permitted for grazing, from 134,126 acres in 1992 to 58,742 acres in1997.

Table 4-4. Mendocino County Summary by Land Use Category

County Summary (acres)Agricultural Land Use Category

1992 1997

Land in farms 725,118 638,566

Irrigated 23,060 24,716

Total cropland 29,298 30,425

Average size of farm 666 585

Full time farms 532 564

Source: Agricultural Census for Mendocino County

Chapter 4 Cumulative Impacts


The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey indicates a highconcentration of prime soils in the project area; however, intensive agriculturalproduction is not found in the area. This phenomenon is due to the high water tableand lack of drainage, which precludes the ability to cultivate orchards or vineyards inthe area.

4.4.1 California Land Conservation (Williamson Act)The Williamson Act of 1965 is the state’s principal policy for the preservation ofagricultural and open-space land. The program encourages landowners to work withlocal governments in order to protect important farmland and open-space.Landowners can enroll parcels for a minimum of 10 years. This program helps localgovernments to restrict land to agricultural and compatible open space use. In doingso, land is assessed for property taxes at a rate consistent with its actual use, ratherthan the potential value of the land. The main purposes of the Williamson Act are topreserve agricultural land and to encourage open space preservation and efficienturban growth.

Williamson Act lands are classified as prime or non-prime. Prime Farmland is landsrated I and II in the Land Use Capability Index or has a rating of 80 through 100 inthe Storie Index, a method of evaluation used by the Natural Resources ConservationService. Non-prime land is usually grazing and rangeland. These lands can also beconsidered as Open Space of Statewide Significance.

The Williamson Act contains notification provisions (Government Code Section51291(b)) that require state and local agencies to notify the Department ofConservation of the possible acquisition of Williamson Act contracted land.

Mendocino County actively participates in the Williamson Act program (Table 4-5).In 1999, a total of 464,095 acres was enrolled in the program. Land considered primeunder this program totaled 32,192 acres (7%) and non-prime, 431,903 acres (93%),constituted the remainder. There has been a decrease of 33,835 acres or 3.5 percentenrolled in the program from the previous year. Property value increases and thesteadily-rising demand for residential property in Mendocino County have led todecreasing enrollment in Williamson Act contracts.



Table 4-5. Mendocino County Acreage Enrolled in Williamson ActProgram

Total Acreage Per YearCategory

1998 1999

Prime 33,256 32,192

Non-prime 464,674 431,903Total 497,930 464,095

Source: Personal communication, Tim Bryant, Williamson Act Analyst, Department of Conservation.

Table 5-9 in Section 5 Environmental Consequences shows a summary of WilliamsonAct contracted land in the project area that would be impacted by the proposedproject alternatives.

4.5 Social Characteristics

The following discussion describes the social and economic environment in theproject area.

4.5.1 Environmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898 (Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32) requires each federalagency to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and avoid“disproportionately high and adverse” effects of federal projects on minority and low-income populations’ health and/or environment. As part of the NEPA process,FHWA with assistance from Caltrans will determine consistency with this ExecutiveOrder.

In response to Executive Order (EO) 12898, FHWA provides FHWA Order 6640.23that provides direction in complying with EO 12898. The order requires theenvironmental document to explain EO 12898, identify minority and low incomegroups and communities in the project area; discuss public participation efforts duringproject development; identify beneficial and adverse impacts, as well as mitigationmeasures; and identify if the project will cause a disproportionately high adversehuman health or environmental effect on a minority and/or low income population inthe project area.



In addition to EO 12898, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and relatedstatutes, requires there be no discrimination in federally-assisted programs on thebasis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.

To comply with these laws and regulations, this Draft EIR/EIS presents, in thefollowing sections, the demographic, housing, and economic characteristics of Willitsto identify minority or low-income populations that might be impacted by theproposed project.

4.5.2 DemographicsThe population of Willits and its trade area (an area from Willits to theMendocino/Humboldt County border) has increased at an even and moderate rateover the last six years. The growth of the city has been approximately 1.7 to 2percent per year while its trade area has grown at an annual rate of between 1.6 to 2.2percent. Table 4-6 shows the population growth of both Willits and its trade area.

Table 4-6. Willits Area Population

Population Willits Greater Willits Area1980 Total 3,706 9,9351990 Total 5,027 13,1551996 Total 5,402 14,2132001 Projected 5,677 14,958% Change 1980 - 1990 35.6% 32.4%% Change 1990 – 1996 7.5% 8.0%

Source: Willits Chamber of Commerce Website, 2000Note: Trade Area includes four census tracts and includes an are from Willits to Mendocino/Humboldt

County border.

According to the Willits Housing Element, in 1990 nearly 14 percent of thepopulation was 65 years of age or older, up from 12.7 percent in 1980. The aging ofthe population, while slight during the 1980s is expected to accelerate in the future.The Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that between 1990 and 2020, the numberof persons in Mendocino County age 65 and older will increase more than twice asfast as the population as a whole. The median age of residents of Willits was between30 and 34 years of age in 1990. This was consistent with the median age of residentsof Mendocino County in 1990, which was 35 years of age.



In 1990, 84 percent of the population in Willits was classified as non-Hispanic white.By 1996, the proportion of non-Hispanic white residents declined to about 78 percent.The remainder of the population was primarily composed of white Hispanic andAmerican Indian residents. The Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians ofCalifornia has a rancheria and casino west of Willits near S.R. 20 (see Volume II,Atlas Map 2).

The proportion of minority residents in Census Tract Block Groups 107.1 and 107.5were 21.5 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively (Figure 4-2). Given the proportionsof minority residents elsewhere in the affected area, these block groups haveconsiderably higher proportions of minority residents. “Considerably higher” in thiscontext means that the proportion of minority residents in these block groups was atleast one standard deviation (4.3 percent) greater than the average proportion ofminority residents.



Figure 4-2. Census Tract Block Groups 107.1, 107.5, and 107.6

4.5.3 Housing Characteristics

Since the DOF information is presented by jurisdiction, housing estimates arepresented for both Willits and Mendocino County but not for the greater Willits tradearea or the Little Lake Valley. Table 4-7 presents a summary of housingcharacteristics based on DOF projections and the Caltrans Draft Relocation ImpactReport (DRIR) (1999).



Table 4-7. Housing Characteristics

Characteristics Willits Mendocino CountyTotal Housing Units 2,012 37,112Single Family Units 1,239 26,4652+ Units 611 4,945Mobile Homes 162 5,702% Owner Occupied 46.40% 56.2%Vacancy Rate 03.18% 09.74%Persons Per Units 2.617 2.537Median Housing Value (1996) $112,570 $123,900

Sources: Department of Finance Estimates, 1999 and Caltrans Draft Relocation Impact Report, 1999Note: All figures are 1999 unless noted.

In 1999, DOF estimated there were 2,012 housing units within Willits, an increase ofonly 44 units from the 1990 census. Of the 2,012 housing units in Willits, 1,239 aresingle-family units and 162 are mobile homes (Map 11). The remaining units aremulti-family dwellings of 2+ units per building.

There are four mobile home parks within the project area, including: Wagon WheelMobile Home Park, located at 1750 South Main Street; Parkside Mobile Home Park,at 19401 Walker Road; Valley Oaks Mobile Home Park located east of AlternativeC1T at 2101 Valley Road; and Grange Mobile Home Park located at 20 Pine Street inWillits. Two mobile home parks -- the EZ Living Mobile Home Park, located at19925 North Highway 101, and the Little Lake Mobile Home Park, located at 24800North Highway 101 -- are adjacent to the proposed project.

Some of the residential units in Willits share characteristics of both multi-family andsingle-family dwellings. These small, densely grouped units resemble “bungalows”rather than traditional single-family units or apartments. In some cases, they sharecommon walls and in other cases they are stand-alone. They are not located onseparate parcels, however, and are rented to multiple tenants by a common owner.For the purposes of this report, these “bungalows” are referred to as multi-familydwellings.

Several figures from the Willits General Plan Housing Element and the DOFprojections suggest a “tight” housing market. First, the DOF vacancy rate isprojected to be 3.18 percent of the total housing units. This is compared to a



countywide vacancy rate average of 9.74 percent. Willits also has a persons-per-household rate of 2.61, which is the highest in the county for any incorporated area.

Willits has historically had a relatively low proportion of home ownership. In 1990only 48 percent of the City’s housing units were owner occupied. In 1999, only 46.4percent were estimated to be owner occupied. The Willits Housing Elementattributes the low home ownership rate, at least partially, to a decrease in “incomeadequacy on the part of Willits residents.”

The DRIR identifies areas of affordable housing along Hollands Lane in Willits. TheDRIR also identifies most of the mobile home units located in mobile home parks inthe affected area as affordable housing.

In 1996, the median housing value was estimated at $112,570. Increases in homeprices combined with income and supply inadequacies have created a housingaffordability problem in Willits. The Housing Element indicates this problem can beaddressed by increasing the supply of affordable housing units and facilitating thecreation of jobs to enhance the ability of residents to pay for housing.

Under existing zoning, a maximum of 1,631 additional dwelling units could be built,including 1,208 multi-family units. None of the developable land within the city iscurrently designated for use as a mobile home park.

4.5.4 Employment and Income CharacteristicsThe fastest growing employment sectors in Willits are those with relatively low wagerates, such as retail trade and services. Based on the latest available data (1997) fromthe Employment Development Department, 2,280 people were employed in differentsectors of the economy in 1997, and the unemployment rate was estimated at 7.8percent. For comparison, the 1997 unemployment rates for Mendocino County,California, and the United States were 7.9 percent, 6.3 percent, and 4.7 percent,respectively.

Based on the latest data available (1996), per capita income for Willits was $12,735and the average household income was $33,250 with nearly $15,000 worth of annualhousehold retail and service expenditures.



U.S. Census Tract Block Groups 107.5 and 107.6 have proportions of low-incomeresidents that are significantly higher than the average for the affected area (23.8percent and 22.5 percent, respectively) (Figure 4-2).

4.6 Economics

4.6.1 Existing Economic SettingThe Willits trade area consists of four census tracts, which include the communitiesof Brooktrails, Pine Mountain, Leggett, Laytonville, Covelo, and Willits. Table 4-8shows the population of Willits and its trade area. The Willits trade area includes7,400 households, with an average annual household income of almost $33,250 ofwhich nearly $15,000 is spent on annual retail and service expenditures. Residents ofthe trade area who live outside of Willits in the unincorporated area make upapproximately 25 percent of the non-tourist business with the city.

Table 4-8. Willits/Trade Area Population

Year Population withinCity Limits

Population in theGreater Willits Area

Total Population in theWillits Trade Area

1980 3,706 9,935 13,6411990 5,027 13,155 18,1821996 5,402 14,213 19,615

Source: Willits Chamber of Commerce, 1999.

Major Types of Economic ActivitiesThe economy of Willits is characterized by strong retail sales, stable governmentfinances, and a growing labor market. The city functions as a subregionalcommercial center serving a market area of over 19,600 people.

An increasingly significant role in the local economy is played by retail sales. Nearlyone in four nonagricultural jobs is in the retail trade sector. Taxes generated throughretail trade constitute the largest component of local government revenue. Table 4-9shows the number of retail stores by type, number of permits, and total taxable salesfor Willits in 1997.



Table 4-9. Taxable Transactions in Willits

Type of Retail Store Permits onJanuary 1, 1998

Total Taxable Sales(1,000 of dollars)

Apparel Stores 5 374General Merchandise Stores 3 Not ReleasedFood Stores 12 10,714Eating and Drinking Establishments 36 9,353Home Furnishing & Appliances 9 1,457Bldg. Materials & Farm Equipment 13 13,162Auto Dealers & Auto Supplies 10 8,187Service Stations 6 10,175Other Retail Stores 56 11,247Retail Stores Total 150 64,669Source: Board of Equalization, 1999

Applying a sales tax rate of 7.25 percent to the total taxable sales, the retail sales taxrevenue from the Willits area would amount to about $4.7 million. Of this amount,the revenue actually distributed to the City of Willits was $803,574 in 1997. Salestax revenue provides approximately one-third of the total City budget, which isindicated by the 1998-1999 budget of $2.5 million, $872,800 of which is estimated tocome from the sales tax revenue.

Business Activity Along U.S. 101Willits has a wide variety of businesses serving the needs of the local trade arearesidents as well as those of travelers. A visual survey conducted by Caltrans staff inDecember of 1998, determined that there were approximately 188 businesses alongU.S. 101 within the city limits. More than half of these businesses (122) provideservices primarily to local residents and the greater Willits market area rather thanvisitors or tourists. The survey ensures that the businesses considered in the studyarea are those that have visual exposure to through traffic on the existing route andare, therefore, most likely to be impacted by the bypass alternatives. Table 4-10classifies the existing businesses along U.S. 101 within the city limits according tothe findings of the visual survey.



Table 4-10. Count and Classification of Businesses Along U.S. 101Through Willits

Category # of Businesses AlongU.S. 101 Percent

Local Professional 28 15%Local Retail 44 23%Other Local Services 48 26%Restaurant 25 13%Fast Food 6 3%Gasoline 8 4%Convenience (no gas) 1 1%Hotel/Motel 11 6%Gift/Variety Shops 15 8%Other Tourist Services 2 1%Total 188 100%

Source: Visual survey by Caltrans staff, 1999

The first three categories of Table 4-10 refer to businesses that provide goods orservices primarily to local area residents (i.e., residents in the Willits trade area).Examples of businesses in these categories include accounting, medical and legalprofessionals; hardware, home, and grocery shops; automobile services; and beautysalons. Sixty four percent of the businesses from the survey along the existing routewere local businesses. The next four categories refer to businesses that provide goodsor services to both local area residents and tourists. Examples of such businessesinclude traditional and fast food restaurants, gasoline stations, and conveniencestores. These businesses comprise 21 percent of those found in the visual survey.Finally, the last three categories refer to businesses that provide goods or servicesprimarily to tourists. Examples of businesses in these categories include hotels,motels, gift and variety shops, and camping/RV businesses. These categoriescomprise 15 percent of those found in the visual survey.

For perspective, the number of retail store permits in Willits was 150 on January 1,1998 (see Table 4-9). The survey of businesses along U.S. 101 through the businessdistrict revealed 118 retail stores, or 77 percent of the total retail stores in the entireCity of Willits. Of the 118 retail stores along U.S. 101, 26 of them, or 17 percent,appeared to cater primarily to tourists or both tourists and area residents.



The downtown business district can be evaluated in two distinct sections (Map 12).The first section, referred to locally as the “Miracle Mile,” is the section of U.S. 101north from the southern city limits to the S.R. 20 intersection. This section of thebusiness district is visible to north-south traffic along U.S. 101 as well as trafficbetween Ft. Bragg and areas south of Willits. This is considered the prime locationfor commercial retail establishments due to the high visibility to out-of-towntravelers. The second section is U.S. 101 north of S.R. 20 to the northern city limits.

The survey of businesses along U.S. 101 through Willits indicated that the percent ofbusinesses engaged in tourist trade along the Miracle Mile is not dramaticallydifferent from the northern stretch of the route through town (Table 4-11). Therefore,regardless of the specific bypass design, Caltrans studies do not anticipate adisproportionate change in business activity along the Miracle Mile relative to thenorthern section.

Table 4-11. Concentration of Businesses Along U.S. 101 by Locationand Type

Location Local Local &Tourist TouristAll Business 64 % 21% 15%Miracle Mile Business 59% 24% 17%North Section Business 68% 19% 13%

Source: Willits Economic Survey Report, Caltrans, 1999

4.7 Water Resources

4.7.1 Surface Water HydrologyElevation within the project area ranges from 1,010 m (3,320 ft) in the surroundinghillsides to 400 m (1,320 ft) on the Little Lake Valley floor. The valley itself isrelatively level, with an average slope from south to north of 0.25 percent. Allsurface waters from the project area enter into Outlet Creek, a major tributary of theEel River basin above its confluence with the Middle Fork of the Eel River. TheLittle Lake Valley watershed is approximately 194 square km (75 square miles [sqmi]). Little Lake Valley is contained within the 422 square km (163 sq mi) OutletCreek Hydrologic Shed Area (HSA). The HSA is located within the Eel RiverHydrologic Unit (HU), with a total area of 9,360 square km (3,614 sq mi). The Eel



River flows northward through Humboldt County, where it discharges to the PacificOcean.

The northwestern portion of California has a mild and wet climate. Annual averageprecipitation in the Little Lake Valley is about 1,350 mm (53 in). Most precipitationoccurs during low intensity winter and spring rains. A small amount of snow falls onhigher elevations.

There are numerous seasonal creeks that flow from the surrounding hills into LittleLake Valley, converging at the north end in a poorly drained, marshy area to formOutlet Creek (Map 14). Following heavy rainfall events, a small lake forms in thenorthern part of Little Lake Valley, and is present for most of the wet season (Map19).

Streams on the Little Lake Valley floor characteristically have flatter gradients andbroader channel widths than in the surrounding foothills, and substrates consisting ofsand- and silt-sized particles. Stream bank stability is low, particularly wherelivestock are present. On the west side of the valley, stream reaches with valley floorcharacteristics include Haehl Creek, and the lower sections of Baechtel, Broaddus,Mill, and Upp Creeks as they merge and form Outlet Creek.

In the foothills, streams consist largely of narrow, deep pools and shallow runs andriffles with predominantly gravel and cobble substrates. On the south and west sideof the valley, the streams with these characteristics include Upper Haehl Creek, andthe middle parts of Baechtel, Broaddus, Mill, and Upp Creeks.

Due to the seasonal nature of precipitation, flow fluctuates significantly from the highflow periods (December to May) to the low flow periods (June to November).During dry years, Outlet Creek may have no flow.

4.7.2 Groundwater HydrologyAn estimated 74 million m3 (60,000 acre ft) of groundwater are available in LittleLake Valley, while the recharge rate is estimated at 12.3 million m3 (10,000 acre ft)per year. The groundwater depth is generally less than 4.6 m (15 ft) below the valleyfloor. Drawdown has been an issue in the valley since the 1940s, and the Little LakeWater District has implemented a drawdown ordinance.



4.7.3 Regional Water QualityThe State of California, in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act,has submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a draft list ofimpaired waters. Within the Eel River watershed, the Eel River, including its north,south and middle forks have been listed as impaired due to temperature andsediment/siltation concerns. Total maximum daily pollutant loads (TMDLs) have notbeen adopted at this time but are anticipated to be in place prior to implementation ofany build alternative.

Outside of the sediment and temperature concerns in the Eel River basin, waterquality is generally good. The area is lightly populated, with little industry.Vineyards, cattle grazing, and roads are the major man-made sediment impacts to theambient surface water quality, although a large majority of erosion attributed to roadsis associated with logging and other unpaved roads.

USEPA has developed an Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) in an effort to presentinformation on the overall aquatic health of specific watersheds. The IWI lists theUpper Eel River watershed as having “Less serious problems – low vulnerability.”Water quality data that were collected from 1992 through 1997 just upstream of theconfluence of Outlet Creek and the Eel River indicate the waters meet or exceed theBasin Plan objectives (excluding temperature and sediments) and, in most cases,organics and inorganics of concern are below detection limits.

4.8 Floodplain Encroachment

Little Lake is a seasonal lake located in the Willits-Little Lake Valley basin. The lakeis fed by many tributaries and has its outlet through Outlet Creek. Because of anatural constriction where Outlet Creek flows from the basin, a substantial backwaterforms to create Little Lake during periods of extended rainfall. The flood ofDecember 1964 raised the lake levels to an elevation of approximately 407 m (1335ft). At this elevation, Little Lake inundates an area of about 890 ha (8.9 km2 or 2200ac) and has a storage capacity of approximately twenty-seven million m3 (22,000 acrefeet). Major floods have occurred in 1955, 1964, and 1974. Localized flooding isgenerally related to debris and/or erosion problems within the creeks.



There are numerous streams that discharge into Little Lake Valley (Map 14). Listedin Table 4-12 are the seven largest streams, their drainage areas, and their estimated100-year peak discharges.

Table 4-12. Drainage Area and 100-Year Peak Discharge

CreekDrainage Area

square kilometers(square miles)

100-Year Peak Dischargecubic meters per second(cubic feet per second)

Baechtel Creek, Above confluence w/ Haehl Creek 35.74 (13.8) 110.4 (3,900)

Broaddus Creek, Above confluence with Baechtel Creek 20.46 (7.9) 74.2 (2,620)

Davis Creek At Hearst-Willits Road 38.33 (14.8) 123.5 (4,360)

Haehl Creek, Above confluence w/ Baechtel Creek 28.23 (10.9) 80.4 (2,840)

Mill Creek, At downstream City of Willits corporate limits 25.12 (9.7) 90.3 (3,190)

Berry CreekNear Reynolds Highway 7.77 (3.0) 30.0 (1,060)

Outlet CreekAt Highway 101 Bridge Not Determined 764.5 (27,000)

Source: Location Hydraulics Study, Caltrans, 2000

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted studies of the LittleLake Valley Floodplain in support of their National Flood Insurance Program. TheFlood Insurance Studies investigated the existence and severity of flood hazards inthe City of Willits and the surrounding unincorporated areas. To estimate the 100-year water surface elevation of the major streams in the Little Lake Valley, atechnique developed by ACOE was used to model the streams. This information, aswell as high water data obtained by ACOE during the 1964 flood, was used todetermine the base floodplain. The base floodplain is depicted on Flood InsuranceRate Maps (FIRM) for Mendocino County (Community-Panel Numbers 0601830587C, 060183 0589B, and 060183 0600B) and the FIRM for the City of Willits(Panel 060187 0001C) (Map 14).



Floodways were determined by FEMA for the portions of Mill, Broaddus, andBaechtel Creeks located within the City of Willits. Floodways were not determinedby FEMA for these three creeks outside of the Willits city limits. A floodway areawas also determined for Davis Creek, from the Hearst-Willits Road bridge toapproximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream. A floodway is the channel of a stream, plusany adjacent floodplain areas, which must be kept free of encroachment so that a 100-year flood event can be carried without substantial increase in flood elevations.Floodways generally follow creek drainages in the Little Lake Valley.

4.9 Biological Resources

Little Lake Valley and the surrounding foothills consist of a wide variety oftopographic, hydrologic, and edaphic (soil) conditions, which supports a number ofhabitat types and provide habitat for a diversity of biological communities (see Maps15 through 19).

4.9.1 Natural CommunitiesThe natural plant communities and wildlife habitats of the valley bottom includeextensive wetland habitats, including wet meadows, marshes, and riparian woodlands;however, much of the wetland vegetation has been altered by farming and urbandevelopment. Large expanses of these habitat types are unusual in the North CoastRange because wide graben-type valleys, like Little Lake Valley, with poor drainageare uncommon. Because they are regionally uncommon, these extensive wetland andriparian habitats in the project area have become particularly important to migratingwaterfowl and other wildlife species. In the hills surrounding Little Lake Valley, thevegetation is typical of the grasslands, woodlands, and forests of the North CoastRange and is relatively undisturbed.

A number of wildlife species will use plant communities occurring in the project areafor foraging, breeding and resting. Table 4-13 lists the estimated area of the habitatson the floor of Little Lake Valley excluding foothill habitat areas that surround thevalley floor.



Table 4-13. Habitat Areas on the Floor of Little Lake ValleyHabitat Formation Approximate Area [ha (ac)]Wooded riparian 320 (791)Wet meadow 1,050 (2,594)Marsh 240 (593)Grassland 650 (1,606)Oak woodland 40 (99)Total 2,300 (5,683)

Source: Supplemental Natural Environmental Study, Caltrans, 2000Note: Foothill habitats are not included in this table.

The general natural communities (habitats) identified above can be subdivided furtherinto approximately 31 plant communities, which were identified in the study area andlisted in Table 4-14. Several plant communities and habitats in the study area areregulated (e.g., wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or supportspecial biological values, including wet meadow, marshes, riparian woodlands, oakwoodlands, and vernal pools/swales.

Hay and residential meadows are disturbed or cultivated communities, portions whichare jurisdictional wetlands that are common in Little Lake Valley. These providemarginal wetland functions and values.

Garry and black oak woodlands are locally and regionally common woodlands in thestudy area. These oak woodland areas provide important biological and aestheticvalues, including food sources, roosting and nesting sites for wildlife, habitatdiversity, and visual diversity.

Several plant communities in the study area were identified as sensitive and includednative bunchgrass grasslands, riparian scrub and woodlands, wet meadow, marshes,vernal pools, swales, and other waters of the U.S. (streams).

Table 4-14. Plant Communities in the Willits Bypass Project Area

Formation Plant Community Section 404Jurisdiction a

SensitiveNatural

Community b

Grassland Annual grasslandPasture grasslandNative bunchgrass grassland XOld field grasslandDryland farmed grassland

Oak woodland Garry oak woodland



Formation Plant Community Section 404Jurisdiction a

SensitiveNatural

Community b

Black oak woodlandWooded riparian Mixed riparian woodland X X

Ash riparian woodland X XValley oak riparian woodland X XValley oak–ash riparian woodland X XWillow riparian scrub X XMixed riparian scrub X XMontane riparian woodland X X

Forest Mixed north-slope forestDouglas-fir forestMixed conifer forestMixed evergreen forest

Chaparral Northern mixed chaparralManzanita chaparral

Marsh Mixed marsh X XCattail marsh X XTule marsh X X

Meadow Wet meadow X XHay meadow XResidential meadow XDry meadow

Vernal pool Vernal pool X XSwale Swale X XStock pond Stock pond/open water XOther waters Other waters (creeks/channels) X XSource: Supplemental Natural Environmental Study, Caltrans, 200Notes:a = Jurisdictional wetland communities b = Communities that are either naturally rare, substantially diminished by human

activities, have particularly high ecological and human amenity values, or are targeted forprotection by state or federal laws and policies (e.g., wetland resources).

4.9.2 Threatened And Endangered Species And Species Of Concern This section provides an overview of the special-status species that are known tooccur or may occur within the project area.

4.9.2.1 Special-Status PlantsFourteen special-status plants were identified as potentially occurring in the projectregion. Table 4-15 identifies these special-status plants. Of these species, three were



located during the floristic studies conducted in 1997, including one state-listedspecies and two other sensitive species (Map 15):

� Baker's meadowfoam (Limnanthes bakeri), a federal species of concern and statelisted as rare, was widespread in Little Lake Valley and was located alongAlternatives C1T, J1T, and LT.

� Glandular western flax (Hesperolinon adenophyllum), a federal species ofconcern and a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B species, was locatedalong Alternative E3.

� Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri), a CNPS List 1Bspecies, occurs in the project area but would not be impacted by any of the buildalternatives.

4.9.2.2 Special-Status Wildlife and Fish SpeciesThirty special-status wildlife and fish species were identified as occurring orpotentially occurring in the project region (see Maps 16 and 17). The status andpotential for occurrence of special-status wildlife and fish species are summarized inTables 4-16 and 4-17, respectively. Of these wildlife and fish species, 18 wereobserved in the project area. Seven of these species are listed as threatened orendangered, or are candidates for listing, the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), steelhead (O. mykiss), northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Americanperegrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), and little willow flycatcher (Empidonaxtraillii brewsteri); and 11 are species of special concern, which are the foothillyellow-legged frog (Rana boylei), Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmoratamarmorata), osprey (Pandions haliaetus), white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus),Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), sharp-shinnedhawk (Accipiter striatus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie falcon (Falcomexicanus), California yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), and yellow-breasted chat (Icterias virens).

In addition, the remains of another special-status species, the red-tree vole(Arborimus pomo), were found in the project area near the nest of a Northern spottedowl. It could not be determined if the owls captured the voles within the project areaor outside the project area.



Non-special-status raptors observed nesting in the project area were red-tailed hawkand red-shouldered hawk (see Map 16 and 17). Special-status species that may beaffected by the project include:

Chapter 4: Affected Environment


Table 4-15. Special-Status Plants Known or Having Potential to Occur in the U.S. 101/Willits Bypass Study Area

Common Name andScientific Name

Status*Federal/State/CNPS

Geographic Range HabitatPotential toOccur withinthe ProjectArea**

Federal and State Listed SpeciesRoderick's fritillaryFritillaria roderickii (F.biflora var. biflora)

--/E/1B Limited area in central Mendocino County Grasslands and oak woodlands, generally nearthe coast very low

Burke's goldfieldsLasthenia burkei E/E/1B Lake, Mendocino, and Sonoma Counties Wet meadows and vernal pools very low

Baker's meadowfoamLimnanthes bakeri SC/R/1B Mendocino County, including Little Lake

Valley and near Laytonville Vernal pools, swales, other seasonal wetlands present

Milo Baker's lupineLupinus milo-bakeri SC/T/1B

Colusa and Mendocino Counties; reportedfrom U.S. 101 near Longvale [5 km (3 mi.)north of Little Lake Valley]

Oak and mixed evergreen-oak-conifer forests;frequents roadsides and similar disturbed areas moderate

Hoover’s semaphoregrass Pleuropogonhooverianus

SC/R/1B Mendocino, Marin, Sonoma CountiesMarshes, meadows, and other types of seasonalwetlands where water ponds during the wetseason

low

Showy Indian cloverTrifolium amoenum E/--/1B

Historically in Coast Range from SantaClara to Mendocino Counties; now knownonly in Sonoma County

Grassland, oak woodland low

Other Special-Status SpeciesLivid sedgeCarex livida

--/--/1A Reported from coast of Mendocino County,Oregon, and Washington; last seen inCalifornia in 1866

Marshes and swampsvery low

Glandular western flaxHesperolinonadenophyllum

SC/--/1B North and central Coast Range, especiallyLake and Mendocino Counties Serpentine soils in chaparral and grasslands

present

Thin-lobed horkeliaHorkelia tenuiloba

SC/--/1B Marin, Mendocino, and Sonoma Counties Mesic openings in chaparral low

Mendocinobush-mallow Malacothamnusmendocinensis

SC/--/1A Known only from near Ukiah; last seen in1938 Open banks in oak woodland very low

Baker’s navarretia Navarretia leucocephala --/--/1B Interior north Coast Ranges and western

Sacramento ValleyOak woodlands, conifer forests, wet meadows,grasslands, vernal pools present



Table 4-15. Special-Status Plants Known or Having Potential to Occur in the U.S. 101/Willits Bypass Study Area

Common Name andScientific Name

Status*Federal/State/CNPS

Geographic Range HabitatPotential toOccur withinthe ProjectArea**

ssp. BakeriGairdner's yampah Perideridia gairdnerissp. gairdneri

SC/--/4 Known from the coast from Kern toMendocino County

Broadleaf forest, chaparral, grasslands, vernalpools very low

Nuttall’s pondweed Potamogeton epihydrusssp. Nuttallii

--/--/2Coast Ranges of Mendocino County,Several Sierra Nevada Counties; Oregonand Washington

Marshes, swamps, slow moving streams, ponds,lakes, and irrigation ditches high

Beaked tracyinaTracyina rostrata --/--/1B Humboldt, Lake, and Sonoma Counties

Oak woodlands, hardwood forest, open grassyareas, probably areas where soil surface is visible(i.e., no thatch layer, bare sterile ground, androadcuts)

low

Status explanations:FederalE = listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (federal).SC = species of concern StateE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act.

California Native Plant SocietyList 1A = species presumed extinct in California.List 1B = species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.List 2 = species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more

common elsewhere.List 3 = species about which more information is needed to determine their

status. List 4 = species of limited distribution.

Source: SNES, Caltrans, 2000

**Probability based on information available after field surveys were conducted: proximity of nearest occurrences, the geographic extent of the species,and suitability of habitats in the Willits project areaBolded text is meant to emphasize species with federal protection.



Table 4-16. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known or Having Potential to Occur in the U.S. 101/Willits Bypass StudyArea

Species:Common Name

Latin Name

Status*Federal/State

California Distribution Habitats Potential to Occurwithin the Project Area

Federal and State Listed SpeciesBirdsMarbled murreletBrachyramphusmarmoratus

T/ENesting sites from the Oregon borderto Eureka and between Santa Cruzand Half Moon Bay; winters nearshore and offshore along the entireCalifornia coastline

Mature, coastal coniferous forests fornesting; forages in nearby coastal waterand nests in conifer stands greater than150 years old and may be located up to56 km inland

Species surveyed for butnot observed in projectarea: no suitable habitatpresent for this species.

Marbled murrelet CriticalHabitat

Critical Habitat is USFWS designatedareas essential to marbled murrelet’ssurvival and is concentrated on definedlarge, contiguous blocks of late-successional forest lands along thecoastal Pacific Northwest.

Designated Critical Habitatdoes not occur in theproject area

American peregrinefalconFalco peregrinus anatum

D/E Permanent resident on the north andsouth Coast Ranges; may summer onthe Cascade and Klamath Rangessouth through the Sierra Nevada toMadera County; winters in the CentralValley south through the Transverseand Peninsular Ranges and the plainseast of the Cascade Range

Nests and roosts on protected ledges ofhigh cliffs, usually adjacent to lakes,rivers, or marshes that support largepopulations of other bird species

Species observed inproject area

Bald eagleHaliaeetusleucocephalus

PR/E Nests in Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity,Shasta, Lassen, Plumas, Butte,Tehama, Lake, and MendocinoCounties and in the Lake Tahoe area;winter range over most of Californiaexcept the southeastern deserts andhigh altitudes in the Sierras

In western North America, nests androosts in coniferous forests within 1.5 km(0.9 mi) of a lake, reservoir, river, or theocean





Species:Common Name

Latin Name



Northern spotted owlStrix occidentaliscaurina

T/-- A permanent resident throughout itsrange; found in the north Coast,Klamath, and western CascadeRanges, from Del Norte to MarinCounties

Dense, old-growth forests dominated byconifers, with topped trees or oaksavailable for nesting crevices


Northern spotted owlCritical Habitat

Critical Habitat is USFWS designatedareas essential to the northern spottedowl’s conservation and applies solely tothe owl’s habitat units on federal lands

Designated Critical Habitatdoes not occur in theproject area

Little willow flycatcherEmpidonax trailliibrewsteri

SC/E Central and northern California alongthe Coast Range from Santa BarbaraCounty north to Oregon

Nests in riparian areas and often foragesin adjacent open areas and meadows

Species observed inproject area: known onlyas a migrant in the area

Other Special-status SpeciesBirdsCooper’s hawkAccipiter cooperi --/SCS Throughout California except high

altitudes in the Sierra Nevada; wintersin the Central Valley, southeasterndesert regions, and plains east of theCascade Range; permanent residentsoccupy the rest of the state

Nests primarily in riparian forestsdominated by deciduous species and indensely canopied forests and forages inopen woodlands


Northern goshawkAccipiter gentilis

SC/SCS Permanent resident on the Klamathand Cascade Ranges, the northCoast Ranges from Del Norte toMendocino Counties, and in theSierra Nevada south to Kern County;winters in Modoc, Lassen, Mono, andnorthern Inyo Counties; rare insouthern California

Nests and roosts in red fir, Jeffrey pine,and lodgepole pine forests; hunts inforests and forest clearings andmeadows

Species surveyed for butnot observed in projectarea




Species:Common Name

Latin Name



Sharp-shinned hawkAccipiter striatus

--/SCS Permanent resident in the SierraNevada, Cascade, Klamath, and northCoast Ranges at mid-elevations, aswell as along the coast in Marin, SanFrancisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz,and Monterey Counties; winters overthe rest of the state except very highelevations

Dense-canopy ponderosa pine or mixedconifer forest and riparian habitats


Golden eagleAquila chrysaetos PR/SCS,F

P

Mountains and foothills throughoutCalifornia

Cliffs and escarpments or tall trees fornesting; forages in grasslands, chaparral,and oak woodlands


Northern harrierCircus cyaneus

--/SCS North and central coast, centralvalley, and northeastern Californiaand has been recorded on the easternside of the Sierra Nevada mountainsduring winter

Grasslands, meadows, marshes, andseasonal and agricultural wetlandsproviding tall cover


California yellow warblerDendroica petechiabrewsteri

--/SCS Nests over most of California exceptthe Central Valley, the Mojave Desertregion, and high elevations in theSierra Nevada; winters along theColorado River and in parts ofImperial and Riverside Counties

Nests in riparian areas dominated bywillows, cottonwoods, sycamores, oralders, or in mature chaparral; may alsouse oaks, conifers, and urban areas nearstream courses


White-tailed kiteElanus caeruleus

--/CP Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevadafrom northern Sacramento Valleysouth and coastal valleys and foothillsto western San Diego County

Low foothills or valley areas with valley orlive oaks, riparian areas, and marshlandsnear open grasslands for foraging


Prairie falconFalco mexicanus

--/SCS Resident throughout California Nests and roosts on protected ledges ofhigh cliffs, usually adjacent to lakes,rivers, or marshes that support largepopulations of other bird species





Species:Common Name

Latin Name



Yellow-breasted chatIcterias virens

--/SCS Uncommon migrant in California;nests in a few locations withappropriate habitat such asSweetwater Creek, El Dorado County;along the Russian River, SonomaCounty; Little Lake Valley, MendocinoCounty; and Putah Creek, YoloCounty

Nests in dense riparian habitatsdominated by willows, tall weeds,blackberry vines, and grapevines


OspreyPandions haliaetus SC/SCS

Found in northern California primarilyin the Coast Range and also in theKlamath and western CascadeRanges

Found adjacent to lakes, rivers, coastalmarine, and estuary habitats


MammalsPacific fisherMartes pennantipacifica

SC/SCS

Coastal mountains from Del Norte toSonoma Counties; east throughCascades to Lassen County, south inSierra Nevada to Kern County

Mixed conifer habitats with high overstorycover prefering riparian habitat


Red tree voleArborimus pomo

--/SCSOccurs along the north Coast Rangefrom Del Norte County south toSonoma County, California

Inhabits old-growth forest of Douglas-fir,redwood, or montane hardwood-coniferforest

Species could occur inproject area: remains ofone red tree vole found inpellet of spotted owlnesting in the project area

Townsend’s westernbig-eared batCorynorhinustownsendii townsendii

SC/SCSCoastal regions from Del NorteCounty south to Santa BarbaraCounty

Roosts in caves, tunnels, mines, anddark attics of abandoned buildings;sensitive to disturbances and mayabandon a roost after on-site visit

Species not surveyed forbut may occur in projectarea

AmphibiansTailed frogAscaphus truei

SC/SCSOccurs in California from Del Nortecounty south to central SonomaCounty

old, perennial, swift flowing streams andis associated with mature, old growthforest





Species:Common Name

Latin Name



Northern red-leggedfrogRana aurora aurora SC/SCS

Found along the coast and coastalmountain ranges of California fromDel Norte to Mendocino

Permanent and semi-permanent aquatichabitats such as creeks and cold waterponds bordered with grassy or shrubbyvegetation; may estivate in rodentburrows or cracks during dry periods


Foothill yellow-leggedfrogRana boylei SC/SCS

Occurs in stream habitat throughoutnorthwestern California, the CoastRange, and the Sierra Nevadafoothills

River or creeks in woodlands or forestswith rock and gravel substrate and lowoverhanging vegetation along the edgeusually found near riffles with rocks andsunny banks nearby


Olympic salamanderRhyacotriton variegatus SC/SCS

Occurs in stream habitat throughoutnorthwestern California, the CoastRange, and the Sierra Nevadafoothills

River or creeks in woodlands or forestswith rock and gravel substrate and lowoverhanging vegetation along the edge


ReptilesNorthwestern pondturtleClemmys marmoratamarmorata

SC/SCS

In California, range extends fromOregon border south along coast toSan Francisco Bay, inland throughSacramento Valley, and on thewestern slope of Sierra Nevada

Woodlands, grasslands, and openforests; occupies ponds, marshes, rivers,streams, and irrigation canals withmuddy or rocky bottoms


*Status explanations:FederalE = listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (federal)T = listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (federal)PE = proposed endangered under the Endangered Species Act (federal)D = delisted from the Endangered Species Act (federal), monitored for 5 yearsSC = species of concernPR = protected under the "Bald Eagle Protection Act"

StateE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species ActFP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game CodeSCS = special concern speciesCP = fully protected species in California

Bolded text is meant to emphasize species with federal protection Source: SNES, Caltrans, 2000


Willits Bypass EIS/EIR Page 4- 37

� Northern spotted owl, a federal listed threatened species, was found during the1991/92 field surveys and included two nesting pairs located along the northern endof Alternative E3 and near the designated borrow site. The project site is not withinan area that is designated as critical habitat for northern spotted owl in the FinalDraft: Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (dated December 1992).

� California yellow warbler, a state species of special concern, was found on thevalley floor during the field surveys and included at least four potential breedingterritories. Warblers and their breeding territories were found along Davis, Haehl,and Outlet Creeks near Alternative C1T.

� Yellow-breasted chat, a state special concern species, was found during the fieldsurveys and included at least ten potential breeding territories. Chats were foundalong the riparian corridors of Davis, Haehl, Baechtel, Broaddus, and Outlet Creeksnear Alternatives C1T, J1T and LT.

� Red tree vole, a state special concern species, was not observed during the fieldsurveys; however, the remains of one red tree vole were found in a spotted owlpellet (regurgitated prey remains) recovered in the study area, indicating that thisspecies could occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for red tree voles was foundalong the northern portion of Alternatives E3 and in the designated borrow site area.

� Foothill yellow-legged frog, a federal species of concern and a state specialconcern species, was found during field surveys in three streams on Alternative E3,and could be found in all of the streams in the project area.

� Northwestern pond turtle, a federal species of concern and a state special concernspecies, was observed at the Willits sewage disposal ponds and in Outlet Creekwithin all of the alternative alignments. Western pond turtles could occur in all ofthe streams and ponds in the project area.

� White-tailed kite, a state fully-protected species under the California Fish andGame Code, were found during the field survey and included two nesting pairs.Both pairs was found on the valley floor with one pair found near Alternative J1T.

� Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii), a federalspecies of concern and a state special concern species, was not surveyed for as partof this project, although the species may occur in the project area. This speciesroosts in caves, tunnels, and bridges. None of the alternatives of the proposedproject are anticipated to remove or impact potential roosting sites such as bridges.

The locations of special-status wildlife observed in the project study area are providedin Maps 16 and 17.


Page 4-38

Special-Status Fish SpeciesOutlet Creek, a tributary to the Eel River, receives inflow from several tributaries inthe study area, including Davis, Mill, Baechtel, Broaddus, Berry, and Haehl Creeks.These tributary streams originate in the Little Lake Valley watershed surrounding theCity of Willits and flow north into Outlet Creek. Three special-status anadromousfish that are listed as threatened or endangered use these streams for migration,spawning, and rearing: coho salmon, fall-run chinook salmon, and steelhead; thesewould be potentially affected by all the alternatives. Special-status fish speciesknown or having potential to occur in the region are listed in Table 4-17.

Fish habitat types in the Little Lake Valley basin vary and are largely dependent onstream gradient. Above the valley floor, stream gradients are generally steeper,stream channels narrower, water velocities greater, and substrate coarser than instream reaches on the valley floor. Consequently, streams above the valley floor havea greater variety of depths and water velocities, midstream cover, and range ofsubstrate particle sizes, providing a diversity of microhabitats. Map 20 shows streamsub-reaches identified in the study area that have habitat characteristics relevant to thesalmonid populations, including the length, location (valley or foothill), habitatconditions, substrate composition, and record of historical spawning activity.



Table 4-17. Special-Status Fish Species Known or Having Potential to Occur in the U.S. 101/Willits Bypass Study Area

Species Status*Federal/State California Distribution Habitats Potential to Occur

within the Project Area

Federal Listed Species

Tidewater gobyEucyclogobius newberryi

E/SCS From San Diego Countynorth to the Smith River,along coastal California

Shallow coastal lagoons and lowerstream reaches with brackish waterutilizing marshy habitats where theycan avoid high winter flows

Tidewater goby would notoccur since project area lackscoastal lagoon habitat type,which is necessary to supportthis species

Central California Coastcoho salmonOncorhynchus kisutch

T/SCS From Punta Gorda,California, south to SanLorenzo River, Californiaand is a distinctEvolutionarily SignificantUnit

Low gradient coastal streams withcool water temperatures; juvenilesutilize deep pools with woody debrisand after 1 year in freshwater,juveniles migrate to the ocean andspend 1-3 years in saltwater; adultsreturn to natal streams to spawn

Species would not occur inproject area since the EelRiver drainage is north ofPunta Gorda, California

Southern Oregon/NorthernCalifornia coho salmonOncorhynchus kisutch

T/SCS From Cape Blanco, Oregonsouth to Punta Gorda,California and is a distinctEvolutionarily SignificantUnit

Coastal rivers with cool watertemperatures; juveniles spend up to15 months in fresh water utilizingdeep pools with woody debris andmigrate to the ocean and spend 1-3years in saltwater; adults return tonatal streams to spawn

Species historically observedin the project area

Central CaliforniasteelheadOncorhynchus mykiss

T/SCS From Russian River inMendocino County south toSoquel Creek in Santa CruzCounty

Cold, clear water with clean gravel ofappropriate size for spawning;juveniles migrate to ocean afterspending 1-4 years in freshwater

Species would not occur inproject area since the EelRiver drainage is north ofRussian River

Southern Oregon/California Coast chinooksalmon Oncorhynchustshawytscha

T/-- From Cape Blanco, Oregonsouth to Punta Gorda,California

Cold, clear water with clean gravel ofappropriate sizes for spawning;migrate to ocean after spending onegrowing season in freshwater

Species observed in theproject area



Federal Candidate Species Coastal cutthroat troutOncorhynchus clarki clarki C/SCS Coastal streams from

Seward, Alaska to the EelRiver, California; in the EelRiver, they occur upstreamto Fortuna, California

Small, low gradient coastal streamsand estuarine habitats utilizing poolswith fallen logs, undercut banks, andboulders for cover; some juvenilesmigrate to ocean their first year whileothers spend up to 5 years infreshwater

Species would not occur inproject area since Little LakeValley is more than 60 miupstream of Fortuna, California

Northern CaliforniasteelheadOncorhynchus mykiss

C/SCS From Redwood Creek inHumboldt County south tothe Gualala River inSonoma and MendocinoCounties

Cold, clear water with clean gravel ofappropriate size for spawning;juveniles migrate to ocean afterspending 1-4 years in freshwater

Species observed in theproject area

*Statusexplanations:

FederalE = listed as endangered under the Endangered Species

Act (federal)T = listed as threatened under the Endangered Species

Act (federal)PT= proposed threatened under the Endangered Species

Act (federal)C = federal candidate species

StateSCS = special concern species

Source: Supplemental Natural Environmental Study, Caltrans, 2000

Bolded text is meant to emphasize species with federal protection.



4.9.3 Invasive Plant Species Because FHWA has not yet developed a list of invasive plant species to be consideredin the analysis of transportation projects, the California Department of Food andAgriculture (CDFA) list of invasive weeds was used for the analysis of invasivespecies at the project site. Table 4-18 identifies species from the list of invasiveplants that were located within the Willits Bypass Project area. The CDFA assignsratings to each species on its list, which is shown on Table 4-18, below. Theseratings reflect CDFA's view of the statewide importance of the invasive species, thelikelihood that eradication or control efforts would be successful, and the presentdistribution of the invasive species in the state. These ratings are guidelines thatindicate the most appropriate action to take against an invasive plant species.

Table 4-18. List of California Department of Food and AgricultureNoxious Weeds for the Willits Bypass Project

Scientific Name (1) Common Name Pest Rating (2) Plant Family

Carduus pycnocephalus (e) Italian thistle C Asteraceae

Centaurea calcitrapa (e) Purple star-thistle B Asteraceae

C. solstitialis (e) Yellow star-thistle C Asteraceae

Convolvulus arvensis (e) Bind weed C Convolvulacea

Cytisus scoparius (e) Scots broom C Fabaceae

Genistus monspessulana (e) French broom C Fabaceae

Hypericum perforatum (e) Klamath weed C Hypericaceae

Senecio jacobaea (e) Tansy ragwort B Asteraceae

Taeniatherum caput-medusae (e) Medusa head C Poaceae

Notes:(1) Scientific names follow Hickman (1993); (e) = exotic, non-native species. [Hickman, J. C., ed.

1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley,California. 1,400 pp.]

(2) Pest rating based on California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA):A = An organism of known economic importance subject to state (or commissioner when acting as a

state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine, containment, rejection, or otherholding action.

B = An organism of known economic importance subject to: eradication, containment, control or otherholding action at the discretion of the individual County Agricultural Commissioner or an organismof known economic importance subject to state-endorsed holding action and eradication onlywhen found in a nursery.

C = An organism subject to no state-enforced action outside of nurseries except to retard spread orexcept to provide for pest cleanliness in nurseries.


Page 4- 42 Willits Bypass EIS/EIR

4.9.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United StatesUnder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) has authority to regulate activities that could discharge fill or dredgematerial, or otherwise adversely modify wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Any fillor adverse modifications of wetlands or other waters may require a permit from theACOE prior to the start of work. Typically, the ACOE requires mitigation to offsetunavoidable impacts to wetlands and other waters, in a manner that achieves the goalof no net loss of wetland acres or values.

The cumulative total of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S., identifiedfor the proposed project alternatives, consists of: 52.3 ha (129.1 ac) in AlternativeC1T; 6.1 ha (15.1 ac) in Alternative E3; 21.1 ha (52.4 ac) in Alternative J1T; and 29.4ha (72.8 ac) in Alternative LT. There are no wetlands or other waters present in theDesignated Borrow Site. Table 5-18, in Chapter 5, provides a summary ofjurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S.

4.10 Historic and Archaeological Resources

4.10.1 Ethnography and ArchaeologyEthnographic and historic literature place the Little Lake Valley in the territory of thenorthern Pomo (Mitom). During the course of the consultation for this project,representatives of the Pomo (Sherwood Tribe) reiterated that their group maintains apersonal interest in the cultural resources of the Willits Bypass study area.Ethnographic research suggests that there are seven Pomo language families that arecollectively part of the Hokan stock including Northern, Central, Eastern, Southern,Southwestern, Southeastern, and Northeastern. Traditionally, the Northern Pomowere comprised of various tribelets. Tribal boundaries evolved around theexploitation of specific resources and geographical areas. Often the resources wereexploited seasonally on a yearly basis creating resource procurement boundarieswithout physical demarcations. Therefore, it is likely that tribal boundaries changedover time on the basis of environmental criteria.

As with many other California groups, the basic subsistence strategy of the Pomo wasthat of seasonal transhumance, where movements from one ecological zone to anotherwere carried out on a seasonal rotation. The objective of this strategy was to be at theparticular resource during its peak of productivity for ease of procurement; therefore,



a series of base camps among or adjacent to a desired resource were necessary forsuccess of this strategy. Accordingly, this round of subsistence activities resulted inlocating permanent villages along riverbanks on high ground and valley edges duringwinter months where a reliance on stored foods, supplemented with game, formed thesubsistence base.

From mid-winter on, until the arrival of spring, salmon and steelhead trout ran in theEel River and its major tributaries. The Pomo took salmon in large quantities withlong forked spears with bone points and/or with hemp nets. In addition toanadromous species, the Pomo caught perch and “hardmouth” by a variety ofmethods. Hunting resumed on a larger scale throughout spring and summer monthswith the acquisition of deer being the primary emphasis. Other game animalsincluded elk, antelope, Grey squirrel, ground squirrel, rabbit, wildcat, raccoon,panther, and bear. Hunting methods varied and included tracking game, driving itinto enclosures, clubbing (bears), spearing (seal and sea lions on the coast), and usinglow brush fences, nets, snares, and basketry traps for birds.

In addition to hunting and fishing, the women collected a wide variety of plant foods.The more significant included spring berries, clover and a variety of other greens. Inlate spring and early summer, women gathered wild oats. The seeds of wild oatswere presumably transported back to the village, where they were singed or parchedand then ground in hopper mortars.

With the onset of summer, grasses and tarweed matured and were harvested alongwith manzanita berries, elderberries, strawberries, raspberries, thimbleberries, andblackberries. Hunting of deer and other small animals continued during this time aswell. From June through August, the Mitom Pomo also made regular trips to theMendocino County coast in order to harvest marine resources such as seaweed,shellfish, marine fishes, seals, sea lions, and salt. Although the Mitom use of thecoast extended from south of Fort Bragg to an area somewhat south of MendocinoCity, they typically camped at specific localities year after year, such as Three ChopVillage and Buldam.

With the arrival of fall, acorns began to ripen and procurement activities centered oncollecting and processing this resource. During this time the Pomo moved from thecoast back into the interior hills and valleys. All of the larger oaks in the valley wereindividually owned. However, the oaks in the hills, like the large manzanita, were


P

considered to be communal property. Seven species of acorns were harvested, thep ferred species being tanoak. Other nut species gathered during this time includedh zelnuts and nuts from buckeye, gray, ponderosa, and sugar pine. Toyon, bay andm drone berries were the last fruit to be harvested and hunting of small game andbhWm

AsyiBaisd

4Ttarloosb

W1rsf

reaa

age 4- 44

irds, especially quail, intensified during the autumn months. Following the acornarvest, there was an increase once again in salmon fishing and a drop-off in hunting.ith the approach of winter, the Pomo returned to their permanent villages along theajor riverbanks and valley edges, thus marking an end to the yearly cycle.

s a result of nearly 50 years of archaeological and historical research, a culturalequence has begun to emerge for the north coast range that is reflective of over 9,000ears of hunter-gatherer life in the region. The primary cultural assemblagesdentified in the general region include the Augustine Pattern, Gunther Pattern,erkeley Pattern, Borax Lake Pattern, and the Mostin Pattern. These distinct patternsppear to reflect cultural, technological and possibly environmental changes andnfluences. The ethnographic, linguistic, and archaeological records suggest auccessio ide influences, and theevelopm

.10.2 Hhe first

hrough tnd the megion is and in thn his lanffice, antore an ausiness

illitsvi00 residegion, otable, dror miles

n of population movements, the spread of outsent of many distinctive cultural styles.

Willits Bypass EIS/EIR

istoryEuro-Americans who came to the Willits-Little Lake Valley area traveledhe area in the early 1850s on their way north to the new settlement of Eurekaines of the Trinity Mountains. The first permanent settlement of the Willitscredited to Samuel, Martin and Henry Baechtel. Hiram Willits patented theis area in the late 1850s, and by the early 1860s a store had been establishedd. In 1865, when Willits took over the store, the new community had a postd he became the area’s first postmaster. Having a post office made Willits’ttraction for all the settlers in the region, and Willits ran a prosperousthere. The new village was named Willitsville.

lle grew slowly during the 1860s and 1870s and by 1880 it had only aboutents. However, the settlement was the commercial center for the generalffering three stores, a blacksmith shop, hotel, restaurant, two saloons, liveryug store, and other retail establishments for the ranchers and their families around. In 1888, a ballot measure for incorporation of the town was



approved by a sizable margin. The newly incorporated town changed its name toWillits.

Construction on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) began in the late 1890s.The Southern Pacific Railroad took full control of the NWP in 1900 with the firsttrain arriving in Willits in 1902. The impact of the arrival of the railroad on Willitswas substantial and immediate. The town’s population quickly rose to 700. Anotherrailroad important to Willits was the California Western Railroad, which wasoperated by C. R. Johnson, the owner of the Union Lumber Company in Fort Bragg.The first California Western train pulled into Willits in 1912. The new railroadopened markets on the coast to Willits suppliers, and it increased commercial activityin the town. By 1916 Willits considered itself a major transportation hub of theregion; it had become a “railroad town.” The prosperity brought about a residentialbuilding boom. By 1920 the town’s population had grown to about 2,000; however,limited timber and the economic difficulties of the Great Depression had a largeimpact on the local economy.

By 1926 the Northwestern Redwood Company closed its sawmill. The mill wastaken over by the Irvine and Muir Company in 1928, but did not reopen until afterWorld War II. Irvine and Muir Company was already having troubles with its twoother sawmills in Muir Canyon and at Irmulco, both west of Willits. Civic andbusiness leaders sought some relief from these setbacks by trying to encouragetourism. Attracting vacationers and sightseers had been one of the motives of theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad owners in extending the railroad to Willits. A fewguest ranches were started in the 1920s. Although insufficient to pull the regionaleconomy out of its doldrums, these early efforts at promoting tourism laid the basisfor future expansion in this economic sector.



Figure 4-3. Skunk Train Depot in Willits

The lumber industry struggled considerably to the extent that only two sawmills (bothon the coast) were operating in Mendocino County in the 1930s. With the onset ofWorld War II there was a sudden demand for building material to support the wareffort, and Willits’ sawmills were back in operation. The abandoned formerNorthwestern Redwood mill was re-opened after the war, and with the expanded useof logging trucks, new stands of timber became available for logging in the area.Fairly recently, tourism has expanded, possibly encouraged by the California WesternRailroad’s excursion runs between Fort Bragg and Willits featuring the Skunk Trainsteam locomotives. The Willits Skunk Train depot, which has been nominated for theNational Register of Historic Places, is shown in Figure 4-3.

4.10.3 Study Area and SurveysA cultural resource inventory was conducted in accordance with state and federalrequirements. The study included the maximum right of way for five proposedalternatives including J1, L, C, E3, and TSM. The cultural resource inventoryinvolved architectural and archaeological research and field surveys, which includednotification and coordination with Native American groups, historical societies,

Photo courtesy of Northwest Pacific Railroad Historical Society



museums, and other interested parties. A total of 22 architectural properties and 25archaeological sites were identified. The 22 architectural properties were formallyevaluated for their potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP) and for their qualifications as historic resources under CEQA. Sixarchitectural properties were found to be potentially eligible for the NRHP andinclude the Martin Baechtel house, the Samuel Baechtel house, a section of theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad, a section of the California Western Railroad, thepotential Willits historic district (Block 3), and a tee pee burner located at 101Redwood, Inc. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with thedeterminations on August 17, 2000 (Appendix I). In addition to the potentiallyeligible properties in the Study Area, 183 properties were treated under theMemorandum of Understanding for post-1945 Buildings and Pre-1945 Altered orMoved Buildings, updated to include buildings from 1945 to 1950.

The project area changed when three of the alternatives (J1, L, and C1; currently J1T,LT, and C1T) were truncated and the TSM alternative was eliminated. As a result,only portions of two of the architectural properties and only 21 of the archaeologicalsites are currently within or adjacent to the study area boundaries (Alternatives E3,J1T, LT, and C1T). Of the 25 archaeological sites identified originally, 18 are withinand three are adjacent to the more recently defined study area. The archaeologicalsites within the study area include 4 historic, 10 prehistoric, and 4 sites with bothprehistoric and historic components. The three sites adjacent to the study area includeone prehistoric and two historic sites (CA-MEN-3036, CA-MEN-3037H, and CA-MEN-3035H). Of the six historic properties found to be eligible, only two are withinthe current study area boundaries including contributing elements of the CaliforniaWestern Railroad and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. Chapter 5, EnvironmentalConsequences provides additional information about these sites and the project’spotential impacts. In addition to the potentially eligible properties in the study area,113 properties were treated under the Memorandum of Understanding for post-1945Buildings and Pre-1945 Altered or Moved Buildings, updated to include buildingsfrom 1945 to 1950.



4.11 Hazardous Waste

4.11.1 Potential Hazardous Waste SitesAn Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was performed for the four bypass alternatives. TheISA documents the properties that have a potential for containing hazardous wastes.Based on the results of site reconnaissance, historical research, and regulatory filereviews, four properties were identified as having potential hazardous waste issueimpacts to the alternatives. The properties that have potential impacts are discussedin Section 5 Environmental Consequences, and sites that received a high or mediumranking are shown on Map 22 and Table 4-19.



Table 4-19. Hazardous Waste Spills and Potential Hazardous Waste Properties

SITE NAME ADDRESS CONTAMINANTS OFCONCERN

AFFECTEDMEDIA RANKING

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPERTIESSOUTH SEGMENTAlternatives C1T, E3, LT: No hazardous waste properties identifiedAlternative J1T:Atlas MapLabel*2 Microphor, Inc. 452 E. Hill Road VOCs Soil/Groundwater Medium

3 T T Auto Wreckers Mini-Storage 227 N. Lenore Avenue Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Metals Unknown Medium

4 Shuster's Transportation 750 E. Valley Street Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Metals Soil/Groundwater Medium

5 Dept. Public Works RoadYard 751 Hearst Willits Road Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Metals Soil/Groundwater High

NORTH SEGMENTAlternative C1T, E3, J1T, LT: No hazardous waste properties identified

HAZARDOUS WASTE SPILLS (January 1, 1994 to present)Atlas MapLabel*

A U.S. 101 KP 82.17 / PM 51.0 Motor Oil/Hydraulic Oil/DieselFuel Soil NA

B U.S. 101 KP 82.35 / PM 51.17 Diesel Fuel Soil NAC U.S. 101 KP 70.65 / PM 43.90 Diesel Fuel Soil NA

D U.S. 101 KP 74.46 / PM 46.27to KP 103.0 / PM 64.0 Diesel Fuel Soil NA

E U.S. 101 KP 74.37 / PM 46.21 Diesel Fuel Soil/Creek Bed NAF U.S. 101 KP 78.05 / PM 48.5 Motor Oil/Diesel Fuel Soil/Storm Drain NAG U.S. 101 KP 81.98 / PM 50.94 Diesel Fuel Pavement NANotes:*See Volume II, Atlas Map 22 for locations 2, 3, 4, and 5.Alt. = Alternative NA = Not Applicable VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds



4.11.2 Hazardous Waste Spills – U.S. 101The following seven hazardous waste spills occurred along U.S. 101 within theproject limits during the period of January 1994 to the present. Spill informationprior to 1994 is not available. The approximate locations of the spills are presentedon Table 4-19 and shown in Volume II, Atlas Map 22.

� KP 81.98 (PM 50.94) – Approximately 75 to 95 liters (20 to 25 gal) of diesel wasreleased to the roadway on May 9, 2000, when a truck jackknifed and its fuel tanksleaked onto the highway. The spill was confined to the roadway pavement.(Location G, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 74.37 (PM 46.21) - Approximately 40 liters (10 gal) of diesel fuel werereleased to the storm drain, roadbed and creek bed in June 1998. An approximate15 m (50 ft) area was affected. (Location E, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 78.05 (PM 48.50) - Approximately 130 to 265 liters (35 to 70 gal) of motoroil/diesel were released to the roadway and a storm drain from two 415 liter (110gal) truck fuel tanks on December 10, 1998. An area approximately 1.8 m (6 ft)wide by 23 m (75 ft) long was affected. (Location F, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 74.46 (PM 46.27)/KP 103.0 (PM 64.0) - A trail of approximately 150 liters(40 gal) of diesel fuel was noted in the slow lane of southbound U.S. 101 onSeptember 3, 1997. (Location D, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 70.65 (PM 43.90) - Approximately 40 liters (10 gallons) of diesel fuel werereleased to soil located on the shoulder of U.S. 101 on July 9, 1997. Approximately8 sq m (10 sq yd) of soil were affected. (Location C, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 82.35 (PM 51.17) – Approximately 50 liters (15 gal) of diesel were released tothe highway and shoulder when a truck overturned on January 23, 1995.Approximately 10 sq m (12 sq yd) of diesel-impacted soil were removed. (LocationB, Atlas Map 22)

� KP 82.17 (Post Mile [PM] 51.0) - Approximately 60 liters (15 gal) of mixedmotor oil/hydraulic oil/diesel fuel were released to the shoulder of U.S.101 inNovember 1994. An approximate 4.5 sq m (50 sq ft) area was affected when acement mixer overturned. (Location A, Atlas Map 22)



4.12 Visual Resources

A description of the visual environment is necessary to determine and understand theextent of visual changes that may arise from implementation of any of the buildalternatives.

Since the project area is large, there is not a single area or landform that definesvisual quality in the Little Lake Valley. Visual quality varies depending on where inthe project area visual quality is being assessed. To facilitate the visual impactassessment, the project area was divided into distinctive landscape assessment units(LAUs). The existing conditions within each LAU are described below and Map 23shows the location of each. The resources discussed in Section 4.9, BiologicalResources, and Section 4.4, Farmlands, may be consulted for supplementaryinformation regarding the project area’s visual setting. The following discussionfocuses on the existing landscape, visually sensitive resources, and viewers in thestudy area.

4.12.1 South Valley Landscape Assessment UnitThe South Valley Landscape Assessment Unit (LAU) is located at the southerlyentrance of the Little Lake Valley. The area is comprised of ranches, homes on largeacreage and a mobile home park. Morris Dam and Centennial Reservoir are locatedon the east side of U.S. 101. The Northwestern Pacific Railroad winds through thehills of this area. On the east side of U.S. 101, Haehl Creek starts its path northtowards Outlet Creek. To the west of the highway, Baechtel Creek meanders throughMuir Canyon.

Topography consists of gently rolling terrain. Hills in this area have a naturalappearance, even though some contain manufactured slopes due to grading thatoccurred in the late 1960s for improvements to U.S. 101. Muir Canyon Road definesthe northwest side and Baechtel and East Hill Roads define the north side of theSouth Valley LAU. Ridges, which ultimately climb up to the Forsythe Ridge, definethe southern boundary of this LAU.

Grasslands cover most of this area with oak woodlands at the higher elevations.Rolling hills create pleasant curved lines. The highway generally follows naturalcurves of the hills. Commercial-type signage is found along U.S. 101 as one



approaches the City. Textures in the area are generally coarse as trees and buildingscontrast with the rolling grassy hills.

4.12.2 Miracle Mile Landscape Assessment UnitThe Miracle Mile LAU is the southerly entrance to the City. The boundaries are thenative vegetated ridges on the west, Muir Canyon Road on the south, theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad on the east, and S.R. 20 on the north.

Much of the existing development along U.S. 101 is commercial. West of U.S. 101the predominant land use is single-family residential. Public buildings in this LAUinclude Blosser Lane and Baechtel Grove Elementary Schools, Frank HowardHospital and Willits Senior Citizens Center.

Along the highway the land is relatively flat, which is conducive to development.However, there is a series of smaller hills further to the west. Native vegetationincludes native redwood, douglas fir, pine, oak, California bay and madrone trees.Smaller trees in the area are toyon and dogwood. Shrubs include native buckeye andceanothus. Developed areas contain ornamental plants and non-native grasses.

4.12.3 Historic District Landscape Assessment UnitThe boundaries of the Historic District LAU include Sherwood Road on the north,S.R. 20 to the south, Baechtel Creek on the east, and the city limits on the west. Thisis the most populated LAU. Manmade elements dominate the area, with a mix ofresidential, commercial and industrial buildings, and a variety of architectural styles.Some of the older structures are Victorian, bungalow, and English Tudor. Newerstructures are a variety of contemporary styles. Native trees line the major creeks.Ornamental plantings occur in the commercial and residential landscapes.

The visual character of this landscape assessment unit is dominated by low-densityresidential structures. Major areas of public assembly include: historic downtown,Skunk Train Depot, City Hall, Old Library, Community Center, Justice Center,Willits High School, rodeo grounds, Mendocino County Museum, County PublicWorks and City Corporation Yard.



4.12.4 Brooktrails Landscape Assessment UnitOil Well Hill is located on the north end of the Brooktrails LAU. The ridgeline, nearthe airport, is located to the east. S.R. 20 on the south and a ridgeline on the westdefine the other boundaries of this LAU.

Brooktrails started as a recreational community in the 1960s but has evolved into acommunity with many fulltime residents. Currently, approximately 1,250 residentiallots are developed along with limited commercial uses and public facilities to supportthe development. The landform in this area is dominated by rolling to steep foothillslopes and dense vegetation. There is a variety of native species of mixed conifer,stately madrone trees and chaparral interplanted with ornamental plants introduced byhomeowners.

4.12.5 Little Lake Valley Landscape Assessment UnitThe Little Lake Valley LAU is bound to the north by Oil Well Hill, to the east by theeastern ridges surrounding the valley, to the south by East Hill Road and to the westby the boundaries of the Miracle Mile, Historic District and Brooktrails LAUs. Landuses in this area are mainly agricultural and ranching. There are low-densityresidential units with small pockets of industry between East Valley Street and EastCommercial Street. Most of the lowlands in the valley are in the 100-year floodplain.

Outlet Creek drains the entire valley to the northwest creating a rich riparian corridor.Marsh and wetlands cover the valley floor. The dominant landforms in this landscapeassessment unit are grassland in the valley and, in the hills to the east, oak woodlandsand mixed conifers.

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Existing Noise Sensitive Land UsesLand use in the vicinity of Alternatives C1T, LT, and J1T varies from agricultural andrural uses to rural residential. Alternative J1T also includes suburban land uses nearthe vicinity of the little league ball fields. Land use along Alternative E3 includespasture, woodlands and scattered suburban/rural residential uses. The potential fornoise conflicts varies depending on the land uses surrounding each alternative. Oneschool within the study area was evaluated for potential impacts. The Seventh Day



Adventist School (private) is located on Bray Road. Three parks and recreation areasare located within the study area: Lofling Little League and City Ball Fields,Recreation Grove Park, and Willits Rodeo Grounds. Other sensitive receptors in theproject area include several mobile home parks and small subdivisions.

Map 24 shows the U.S. 101 study area and locations where existing noise levels weremeasured. The results of the short-term measurements indicate that existing noiselevels at numerous residences adjacent to the existing U.S. 101 currently approach orexceed a peak hour Leq(h)7 of 67 dBA8. Noise levels at rural residences away fromthe main county roads and state highways are very low (38-50 dBA).

4.14 Air Quality

The City of Willits is located in the North Coast Air Basin, which is under thejurisdiction of the Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District (District).Mendocino County meets all state and national ambient air standards except the state24-hour standard for respirable particulate matter (PM10). In general, air qualitystandards are expressed as a measure of the amount of pollutant per unit of air. Forexample, particulate matter standards are expressed as the microgram of particulatematter per cubic meter of air (�g / m3). PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamicdiameter of 10 microns or smaller. PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamicdiameter of 2.5 microns or smaller.

The District maintains an air monitoring station for ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbonmonoxide, and PM10 in Willits. Since 1995, the District has had one exceedance ofthe state standard for PM10, which occurred in 1997. The District is in “attainment”for all other standards; that is, it is in conformance with National and CaliforniaAmbient Air Quality Standards, which is discussed further in Chapter 5. Table 4-20shows historical monitoring data for the city of Willits. Please note that Willits areais in an attainment or unclassfied area for any federal criteria pollutant, therefore,transportation conformity does not apply.

7 Leq(h)– “Sound level equivalent” averages the total acoustical energy over one hour. SeeGlossary.

8 dBA – a noise measurement.



Mendocino County is in an Unclassified/Attainment area for PM10, therefore a PM10

Hot Spot Analysis is not required. A Hot Spot Analysis concentrates on air qualityimpacts that may occur as a direct result of transportation facility operation and in theimmediate vicinity of the facility. A Hot Spot Analysis is required if the project islocated in a PM10 nonattainment or maintenance area. The PM10 Air Quality

Summaries for the years 1993 through 1997 published by the Air Resources Board(ARB) and the Mendocino Air Quality Management District for the Willits PM10

monitor (located at the Willits firehouse) showed that no monitored violationsoccurred at or near the project locations, and documented PM10 concentrations are

well below the standard. For example, ARB’s 1997 data show a maximum 24-hourconcentration of 66 ug/m3, approximately 44 percent of the federal standard.

Table 4-20. Historical Air Pollution Data for the City of Willits

Historical Air Pollutant Data Summary Table for the City of Willits (1995-1997)Pollutant 1995 1996 1997

Ozone1 Units are inppm

Units are inppm

Units are inppm

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration 0.062 0.058 0.065 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration 0.049 0.049 0.058 Days > State Standard of 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 Days > Federal Standard of 0.12 ppm 0 0 0

Carbon Monoxide1 Units are inppm

Units are inppm

Units are inppm

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration 3 3 4.2 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration 2 1.8 3.04 Days > State Standard of 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Days > Federal Standard of 9.0 ppm 0 0 0

Particulate Matter (PM10)2 Units are in�g/m3

Units are in�g/m3

Units are in�g/m3

Maximum 24 Hour Concentration 47 40 66 Maximum Annual Geometric Mean 16.4 17.5 17.8 Days > State Standard of 50 �g/m3 0 0 1 Days > Federal Standard of 150 �g/m3 0 0 0

Source: The 1999 California Almanac of Emissions & Air Quality. Published by The Air ResourcesBoard, 1999.

Notes: 1 Monitoring station is located at 899 S Main Street in Willits2 Monitoring station is located at the Firehouse in Willits

4.15 Section 4(f) Resources

Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act (49USC 303), the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project:



"...requiring the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreationarea, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or national, state or local significance, orland of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determinedby the federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area,refuge, or site) only if - (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to theusing that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planningto minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge,or historic site resulting from such use."

The regulations implementing Section 4(f) state that "...any use of lands from aSection 4(f) property shall be evaluated early in the development of the action whenalternatives to the proposed action are under study" (23 CFR 771.135(b)).

The review of resources that could incur Section 4(f) impacts resulted in thefollowing list of park and recreation facilities (Table 4-21). These facilities areshown in Figure 5-14 Willits Long Range Park Facilities. As discussed in Section 5.8Cultural Resources, there will be no use of significant historic resources by theproject. The existence of eligible archaeological properties will not be known untilfurther studies are conducted upon selection of a preferred alternative. (Refer toSection 5.8 for an explanation of eligibility).

Table 4-21. Park and Recreation Facilities That Could Be Affected bythe Project

Name Description

Lofling Little LeagueandCity Ball Fields

The facility consists of one little league field and two adult hard andsoftball fields. There are also dugouts, bleachers, a snack bar,restrooms and parking area. The city owns the property on which allthree fields are located; however the little league facilities are ownedby the Willits Little League. The fields are located on the south sideof Commercial Street about 500 meters east of the NorthwesternPacific Rail Road and immediately west of Alternative J1.

Rodeo Grounds andFair Grounds

The fair grounds are west of and adjacent to the Lofling ball fields.The rodeo grounds, which are inside the fair grounds, consist of arodeo arena, stock pens and bleachers. The rodeo grounds host anannual Frontier Days celebration, which consists of a rodeo andparade during the week of July 4th.

Redwood EmpireRailroad History Project,Mendocino CountyMuseum and ballfields

The 10-acre parcel is owned by the City of Willits and is zoned PublicFacility. It is occupied by the Mendocino County Museum and theRoots of Motive Power-Antique Steam Logging Railroad Display,which includes an outdoor display of authentic, working antiquesteam-powered logging equipment. Future plans: the construction ofan exhibition and learning center, and construction of a loop track todemonstrate steam logging equipment to the public.

Source: CalTrans 2001

chapter 2 purpose and need for project - … 2 purpose and need for project willits bypass eir/eis...

Documents